1 2 3
4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 RUBEN HERNANDEZ RAMOS, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02273-TMC 8 Petitioners, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 9 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 10 LAURA HERMOSILLO, et al., 11 Respondents. 12 13
14 Petitioners are individuals who entered the United States without inspection years ago, 15 were apprehended by Department of Homeland Security officials in 2025, and are detained at the 16 Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington. 17 Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 4–18. Petitioners Ruben Hernandez Ramos and Fernando Varela Montoya each 18 requested a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), and both were denied on the basis 19 that they were subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Dkt. 3-3 at 2; 20 Dkt. 3-6 at 2. Hernandez Ramos received bond in the alternative in the amount of $10,000, and 21 Varela Montoya received bond in the alternative in the amount of $7,500. Dkt. 3-3 at 2; Dkt. 3-6 22 at 2. Petitioners Anatalia Marquez Aguilar, Javier Morales Martinez, Felipe Zendejas Lango, and 23 24 1 Ignacio Manuel Pulido Gomez have each requested a bond hearing but have not yet received a 2 ruling from an IJ. Dkt. 10 at 4. 3 On November 14, 2025, Petitioners filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that
4 their mandatory detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) because they 5 were entitled to consideration for release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 36–40. 6 Hernandez Ramos and Varela Montoya request immediate release from custody or, in the 7 alternative, release upon payment of their alternative bond amounts and any conditions set by the 8 government. Id. at 8. Marquez Aguilar, Morales Martinez, Zendejas Lango, and Pulido Gomez 9 request an order requiring Respondents to provide them bond hearings within seven days. Id. 10 Also on November 14, Petitioners filed an ex parte motion for order to show cause. 11 Dkt. 2. On November 17, the Court issued an order directing Respondents to file a return and 12 setting an expedited briefing schedule. Dkt. 8. On November 18, Respondents filed a return.
13 Dkt. 10. The habeas petition is now ripe for the Court’s review. For the reasons set forth below, 14 the Court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by . . . the district courts . . . within their 16 respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Habeas petitioners must prove by the 17 preponderance of the evidence that they are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws 18 or treaties of the United States.” Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 638 (9th Cir. 2004); 19 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). 20 21 II. DISCUSSION A. Petitioners are entitled to habeas relief because their mandatory detention 22 violates the INA. 23 On September 30, 2025, this Court granted summary judgment to members of a certified 24 Bond Denial Class, defined to include the following individuals: 1 All noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection, (2) 2 are not apprehended upon arrival, (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time the noncitizen is 3 scheduled for or requests a bond hearing.
4 Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 3:25-CV-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 5 2782499, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025). 6 The Court issued the following declaratory relief: 7 The Court declares that Bond Denial Class members are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further declares that the Tacoma Immigration Court’s practice of denying bond to Bond Denial Class members on the basis of 9 § 1225(b)(2) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.
10 Id. at *27. 11 Petitioners argue that their mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because 12 they are members of the Bond Denial Class. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 36–40. While Respondents express their 13 continued disagreement with the Court’s order in Rodriguez Vazquez, they do not dispute that 14 Petitioners are members of the Bond Denial Class for purposes of this matter. Dkt. 10 at 3–4. 15 For the same reasons that this Court granted Bond Denial Class members declaratory 16 relief, the Court finds that Petitioners are detained under § 1226(a) and not subject to mandatory 17 detention under § 1225(b)(2). See Rodriguez Vazquez, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 3:25-CV-05240- 18 TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *27. Petitioners have thus shown they are “in custody in violation 19 of the” INA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 20 B. The Court declines to order the unconditional release of Petitioners Ruben Hernandez Ramos and Fernando Varela Montoya. 21 Petitioners argue that the Court should order the immediate, unconditional release of 22 Hernandez Ramos and Varela Montoya because Respondents have failed to comply with the 23 24 1 declaratory judgment in Rodriguez Vazquez. Dkt. 1 ¶ 21; Dkt. 2 at 3–5. The Court declines to do 2 so. 3 “In modern habeas practice, courts often ‘employ a conditional order of release,’ which
4 orders the government to release the petitioner unless it ‘takes some remedial action’ that 5 corrects” the government’s violation of the law. Cardozo v. Bostock, No. 2:25-CV-00871-TMC, 6 2025 WL 2592275, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 8, 2025) (quoting Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 7 741–42 (9th Cir. 2008)). A conditional writ is the “typical relief granted” in a federal habeas 8 case. Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Herrera v. Collins, 506 9 U.S. 390, 403 (1993)). After issuing a conditional writ, a district court retains jurisdiction to 10 ensure compliance with the writ and may order unconditional release if the government fails to 11 comply with the initial habeas order. Rose v. Guyer, 961 F.3d 1238, 1246 (9th Cir. 2020). 12 The Court concludes that Petitioners’ request for unconditional release is premature. The
13 Rodriguez Vazquez declaratory judgment is not a prior habeas order with which Respondents 14 have failed to comply. Section 1226 requires only consideration of release on bond, and 15 conditional release that allows compliance by honoring the alternative bond amounts set by the 16 IJs would correct Respondents’ ongoing violation of the INA as to these Petitioners. See 17 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). If Respondents fail to comply with this order, Petitioners may seek further 18 relief from the Court at that time. 19 III.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3
4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 RUBEN HERNANDEZ RAMOS, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02273-TMC 8 Petitioners, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 9 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 10 LAURA HERMOSILLO, et al., 11 Respondents. 12 13
14 Petitioners are individuals who entered the United States without inspection years ago, 15 were apprehended by Department of Homeland Security officials in 2025, and are detained at the 16 Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington. 17 Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 4–18. Petitioners Ruben Hernandez Ramos and Fernando Varela Montoya each 18 requested a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), and both were denied on the basis 19 that they were subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Dkt. 3-3 at 2; 20 Dkt. 3-6 at 2. Hernandez Ramos received bond in the alternative in the amount of $10,000, and 21 Varela Montoya received bond in the alternative in the amount of $7,500. Dkt. 3-3 at 2; Dkt. 3-6 22 at 2. Petitioners Anatalia Marquez Aguilar, Javier Morales Martinez, Felipe Zendejas Lango, and 23 24 1 Ignacio Manuel Pulido Gomez have each requested a bond hearing but have not yet received a 2 ruling from an IJ. Dkt. 10 at 4. 3 On November 14, 2025, Petitioners filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that
4 their mandatory detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) because they 5 were entitled to consideration for release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 36–40. 6 Hernandez Ramos and Varela Montoya request immediate release from custody or, in the 7 alternative, release upon payment of their alternative bond amounts and any conditions set by the 8 government. Id. at 8. Marquez Aguilar, Morales Martinez, Zendejas Lango, and Pulido Gomez 9 request an order requiring Respondents to provide them bond hearings within seven days. Id. 10 Also on November 14, Petitioners filed an ex parte motion for order to show cause. 11 Dkt. 2. On November 17, the Court issued an order directing Respondents to file a return and 12 setting an expedited briefing schedule. Dkt. 8. On November 18, Respondents filed a return.
13 Dkt. 10. The habeas petition is now ripe for the Court’s review. For the reasons set forth below, 14 the Court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD “Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by . . . the district courts . . . within their 16 respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Habeas petitioners must prove by the 17 preponderance of the evidence that they are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws 18 or treaties of the United States.” Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 638 (9th Cir. 2004); 19 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). 20 21 II. DISCUSSION A. Petitioners are entitled to habeas relief because their mandatory detention 22 violates the INA. 23 On September 30, 2025, this Court granted summary judgment to members of a certified 24 Bond Denial Class, defined to include the following individuals: 1 All noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection, (2) 2 are not apprehended upon arrival, (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time the noncitizen is 3 scheduled for or requests a bond hearing.
4 Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 3:25-CV-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 5 2782499, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025). 6 The Court issued the following declaratory relief: 7 The Court declares that Bond Denial Class members are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further declares that the Tacoma Immigration Court’s practice of denying bond to Bond Denial Class members on the basis of 9 § 1225(b)(2) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act.
10 Id. at *27. 11 Petitioners argue that their mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful because 12 they are members of the Bond Denial Class. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 36–40. While Respondents express their 13 continued disagreement with the Court’s order in Rodriguez Vazquez, they do not dispute that 14 Petitioners are members of the Bond Denial Class for purposes of this matter. Dkt. 10 at 3–4. 15 For the same reasons that this Court granted Bond Denial Class members declaratory 16 relief, the Court finds that Petitioners are detained under § 1226(a) and not subject to mandatory 17 detention under § 1225(b)(2). See Rodriguez Vazquez, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 3:25-CV-05240- 18 TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *27. Petitioners have thus shown they are “in custody in violation 19 of the” INA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 20 B. The Court declines to order the unconditional release of Petitioners Ruben Hernandez Ramos and Fernando Varela Montoya. 21 Petitioners argue that the Court should order the immediate, unconditional release of 22 Hernandez Ramos and Varela Montoya because Respondents have failed to comply with the 23 24 1 declaratory judgment in Rodriguez Vazquez. Dkt. 1 ¶ 21; Dkt. 2 at 3–5. The Court declines to do 2 so. 3 “In modern habeas practice, courts often ‘employ a conditional order of release,’ which
4 orders the government to release the petitioner unless it ‘takes some remedial action’ that 5 corrects” the government’s violation of the law. Cardozo v. Bostock, No. 2:25-CV-00871-TMC, 6 2025 WL 2592275, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 8, 2025) (quoting Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 7 741–42 (9th Cir. 2008)). A conditional writ is the “typical relief granted” in a federal habeas 8 case. Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Herrera v. Collins, 506 9 U.S. 390, 403 (1993)). After issuing a conditional writ, a district court retains jurisdiction to 10 ensure compliance with the writ and may order unconditional release if the government fails to 11 comply with the initial habeas order. Rose v. Guyer, 961 F.3d 1238, 1246 (9th Cir. 2020). 12 The Court concludes that Petitioners’ request for unconditional release is premature. The
13 Rodriguez Vazquez declaratory judgment is not a prior habeas order with which Respondents 14 have failed to comply. Section 1226 requires only consideration of release on bond, and 15 conditional release that allows compliance by honoring the alternative bond amounts set by the 16 IJs would correct Respondents’ ongoing violation of the INA as to these Petitioners. See 17 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). If Respondents fail to comply with this order, Petitioners may seek further 18 relief from the Court at that time. 19 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, the Court ORDERS as follows: 20 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED. 21 2. Within ONE day of this Order, Respondents must do the following: 22 a. Either release Petitioner Ruben Hernandez Ramos or allow his release upon 23 payment of the alternative bond amount of $10,000 and any conditions set by 24 l Immigration and Customs Enforcement/the Department of Homeland Security. 2 b. Either release Petitioner Fernando Varela Montoya or allow his release upon 3 payment of the alternative bond amount of $7,500 and any conditions set by Immigration and Customs Enforcement/the Department of Homeland 4 Security. 5 3. Within 14 days of this order, Respondents must either release Petitioner Anatalia Marquez Aguilar or provide her a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §1226(a). 6 4. Within 14 days of this order, Respondents must either release Petitioner Javier 7 Morales Martinez or provide him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §1226(a).
g 5. Within 14 days of this order, Respondents must either release Petitioner Felipe Zendejas Lango or provide him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §1226(a). 9 6. Within 14 days of this order, Respondents must either release Petitioner Ignacio 10 Manuel Pulido Gomez or provide him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §1226(a). 11 Any fee petition should be filed within the deadlines set by the Equal Access to Justice
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
13 14 Dated this 21st day of November, 2025.
15 CL 16 Tiffany. Cartwright United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24