Home/E.D. Virginia/Tito Garcia Paniagua v. Jeff Crawford, et al.

Tito Garcia Paniagua v. Jeff Crawford, et al.

District Court, E.D. Virginia·Decided August 7, 2026·No. 3:25-cv-01060·Unknown

Opinion

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

TITO GARCIA PANIAGUA, Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 3:25CV1060 (RCY)

JEFF CRAWFORD, et al., Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tito Garcia Paniagua (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee with counsel, is a native of El Salvador national present in the United States without admission. He has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“§ 2241 Petition” or “Petition,” ECF No. 61), challenging the lawfulness of his detention by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Petitioner alleges, inter alia, that Respondents’ application of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) to mandate his detention without the opportunity for bond violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. Pet. at 7–8.2 For the reasons set forth below, the § 2241 Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. I. BACKGROUND Petitioner is a 32-year-old native and citizen of El Salvador who arrived in the United States without inspection on or about June 2014. Pet. ¶¶ 1, 18. Petitioner has resided in the United States since January of 2021. Id. at 2. Petitioner was apprehended by ICE on November 5, 2025, and placed into removal proceedings pursuant 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. Id. ¶ 5. Petitioner was denied a bond

1 Petitioner’s first-filed Petition, ECF No. 1, was deficient for lack of Petitioner’s signature or that of a “next friend” authorized to sign on his behalf. Order, ECF No. 5. Petitioner cured this defect with the filing of the signed Amended Petition, ECF No. 6, which the Court utilizes and cites as the operative Petition in this matter. 2 The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system. subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Id. ¶ 46. On December 23, 2025, counsel for Petitioner filed the initiating § 2241 Petition in this

Court. ECF No. 1. The Amended Petition bearing Petitioner’s signature was filed on January 13, 2026. ECF No. 6. On February 12, 2026, Respondents filed their Opposition to the Petition. ECF No. 8. Petitioner filed a Reply on February 22, 2026. ECF No. 9. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.” Id. “A federal court may grant habeas relief only on the ground that the petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Torrence v. Lewis, 60 F.4th 209, 213 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal citations and brackets omitted). After receiving the petition and any response thereto, “[t]he court shall summarily hear and determine the facts,

and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. III. ANALYSIS The dispositive question posed in the § 2241 Petition concerns whether Petitioner is entitled to a discretionary bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or whether he is subject to the mandatory detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).3 Petitioner contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1226 entitles him to a bond hearing. In opposition, Respondents argue that Petitioner is “defined by law as an applicant for admission,” and therefore is subject to the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a). Opp’n 1, ECF No. 8. Respondents acknowledge, however, that this Court and others have already considered and rejected all of Respondents’ legal arguments asserted in support of their position, and that

3 Because the Court is able to decide this case on the basis of the INA, it need not and does not reach Petitioner’s blanket Fifth Amendment Due Process argument for immediate release. Munoz v Simon, Civil Action No. 3:25CV897, ECF No. 22 (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2025) (Young, J.); Ortega Miranda v. Bondi, 3:25cv769, ECF Nos. 19-20 (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2026) (Novak, J.);

Romero v. Crawford, Civil Action No. 3:25cv788, ECF Nos. 12-13 (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2026) (Hudson, J.); Duarte Escobar v. Perry, Civil Action No. 3:25CV758, ECF Nos. 21, 22 (E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 2025) (Lauck, J.)). In light of Respondents’ recognition of the duplicative nature of the purely legal arguments presented here relative to those previously decided by this Court, see id., this Court maintains and incorporates the reasoning of Ortega Miranda v. Bondi, No. 3:25CV769 (DJN), 2026 WL 287179 (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2026), into this Memorandum Opinion. That same reasoning has been applied in several cases before courts in this district,4 and by this Court as well, and the Court finds no cause to depart from that path now. Petitioner has been present in the United States for over eleven years, and because

§ 1226(a) sets forth “the default rule” for detaining and removing noncitizens “already present in the United States,” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 303 (2018), Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a). Under § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations, he is entitled to a bond

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Tito Garcia Paniagua v. Jeff Crawford, et al., (E.D. Va. 2026).

Tito Garcia Paniagua v. Jeff Crawford, et al. (Tito Garcia Paniagua v. Jeff Crawford, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jennings v. Rodriguez
583 U.S. 281 (Supreme Court, 2018)
Thomas Torrence v. Scott Lewis
60 F.4th 209 (Fourth Circuit, 2023)