Wilmer Isahi Quesada v. Warden of the California City Detention Center, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9

10 11 WILMER ISAHI QUESADA, ) Case No.: 1:26-cv-01112-JLT-SKO (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) A-Number: 249-112-790 ) 13 v. ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 14 ) GRANT PETITION WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA CITY ) 15 DETENTION CENTER, et al., ) [10-DAY DEADLINE] ) 16 Respondents. ) ) 17 )

19 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 20 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 21 Petitioner filed the instant petition on February 9, 2026. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner challenges his 22 continued detention by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). He claims he 23 was wrongly denied a bond hearing by the Immigration Judge. (Doc. 1 at 4-5.) He alleges the 24 Immigration Judge improperly determined it did not have jurisdiction to grant release on bond. (Doc. 1 25 at 5-6.) He claims he should be immediately released, or alternatively, provided a bond hearing before 26 an immigration judge (“IJ”) at which the Government must prove he’s a flight risk or danger to the 27 public by clear and convincing evidence. (Doc. 1 at 8.) 28 1 Respondent filed a response on March 13, 2026. (Doc. 9.) Respondent claims Petitioner is 2 subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), because Petitioner is an “applicant 3 for admission.” (Doc. 9 at 4.) 4 For the reasons discussed below, the Court will recommend the petition be granted. 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Honduras who was encountered by immigration authorities 7 on or about July 15, 2023, at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. (Doc. 9 at 11.) Based on the limited 8 documentation supplied by Respondent, it appears Petitioner was released on his own recognizance 9 soon thereafter but before December 8, 2023, as the exhibits show he was served by regular mail on 10 December 8, 2023, with Notice to Appear at the Sacramento Immigration Court on February 27, 2024. 11 (Doc. 9 at 11-12.) He was placed in removal proceedings, and on May 30, 2024, he was ordered 12 removed to Honduras by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). (Doc. 9 at 18.) 13 On June 17, 2024, Petitioner applied for immigration relief. On June 16, 2025, Petitioner 14 appeared for a master calendar hearing. He was taken into custody after the hearing. (Doc. 9 at 21.) 15 On July 5, 2025, Petitioner appeared at his first detained hearing. Petitioner requested an 16 attorney and the IJ scheduled the next hearing for July 17, 2025. (Doc. 9 at 27.) On July 11, 2025, the 17 IJ reset Petitioner’s hearing to July 24, 2025. (Doc. 9 at 29.) On July 24, 2025, the IJ reset the hearing 18 to August 21, 2025. (Doc. 9 at 31.) 19 On August 21, 2025, Petitioner appeared at his second detained hearing. Petitioner requested 20 time to file evidence and a declaration to support his application for relief. The IJ granted the request 21 and scheduled the next hearing to October 2, 2025. 22 On September 10, 2025, the IJ set the hearing to October 22, 2025, but on October 22, 2025, 23 the hearing was not called. (Doc. 9 at 35.) On October 27, 2025, the IJ reset the hearing to December 24 9, 2025. (Doc. 9 at 37.) On December 8, 2025, the IJ reset the December 9 hearing to December 31, 25 2025. (Doc. 9 at 39.) On December 30, 2025, the IJ reset the December 31 hearing to January 20, 26 2026. (Doc. 9 at 41.) 27 28 1 On January 20, 2026, Petitioner appeared at his third detained immigration hearing. 2 Respondent made a motion to pretermit Petitioner’s application for relief, and the IJ granted Petitioner 3 until February 20, 2026, to file a response, with the next hearing set for February 24, 2026. 4 On February 24, 2026, the IJ granted Respondent’s motion and ordered Petitioner removed to 5 Guatemala, or in the alternative, Ecuador. Petitioner’s appeal of the IJ’s decision is due on March 26, 6 2026. (Doc. 9 at 44.) 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 A. Jurisdiction 9 A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in 10 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 11 “[D]istrict courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider habeas challenges to 12 immigration detention that are sufficiently independent of the merits of [a] removal order.” Lopez- 13 Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759, 759 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1211–12 14 (9th Cir. 2011)). Pertinent here, the Supreme Court specifically directed that federal courts have 15 jurisdiction to review a constitutional challenge to a non-citizen’s detention. See Demore v. Kim, 538 16 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 17 B. Section 1226(a) Governs Petitioner’s Detention 18 Respondent claims that Petitioner is an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory 19 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) of the INA and therefore categorically ineligible for a bond 20 hearing. (Doc. 9 at 3-6.) Regardless of whether Respondent claims detention authority under § 21 1225(b)(1) or § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than § 1226(a), courts nationwide, including this one, have 22 overwhelmingly rejected Respondents’ new legal position and found the DHS policy unlawful. See 23 e.g., Espinoza v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025); 24 Ortiz Donis v. Chestnut, 1:25-CV-01228-JLT, 2025 WL 2879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); M.R.R. v. 25 Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01517-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025); Aguilera v. 26 Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025); J.E.H.G. v. 27 Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01673-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 3523108 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Garcia v. 28 Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025); Carlos v. 1 Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026); Sidqui v. 2 Almodovar, No. 25-CV-9349 (VSB), 2026 WL 251929, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2026) (collecting 3 cases). 4 C. Due Process 5 The Due Process Clause protects persons in the United States from being deprived of life, 6 liberty, or property without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. V. It is firmly established that 7 these protections extend to noncitizens present in the United States. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 8 678, 693, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) (“[T]he Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ 9 within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, 10 or permanent.”); Wong Wing v. U.S., 163 U.S. 228, 238, 16 S.Ct. 977, 41 L.Ed. 140 (1896) (“It must 11 be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection 12 guarantied by [the Fifth Amendment], and that even aliens shall not ... be deprived of life, liberty, or 13 property without due process of law.”). 14 Courts examine procedural due process claims in two steps. Berrios v. Albarran, No. 25-cv- 15 01544-TLN-CSK, 2025 WL 3171140, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025) (citing Ky. Dep't of Corr. v. 16 Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460, 109 S.Ct. 1904, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989)). The first step asks whether a 17 protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause exists. Id. The second step “examines the 18 procedures necessary to ensure any deprivation of that protected liberty interest accords with the 19 Constitution.” Id. 20 The Due Process clause applies to noncitizens in this country in connection with removal 21 proceedings, even if their presence is unlawful or temporary. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693, 121 S.Ct. 22 2491. Since Petitioner has a protected liberty interest, the court must determine the procedures 23 necessary to ensure any deprivation of that protected liberty interest accords with the Constitution. To 24 make that determination, the court applies the three-part test established in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 25 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). See Diaz, 53 F. 4th at 1206–07 (applying the Mathews 26 test to a procedural due process challenge to a detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, explaining that 27 “Mathews remains a flexible test that can and must account for the heightened governmental interest 28 in the immigration detention context”); see also Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 993 (9th Cir. 1 2017) (applying Mathews factors in immigration detention context). The Mathews test considers three 2 factors: (1) the private interest affected; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation; and (3) the 3 government's interest. 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. 893. 4 Turning to the first Mathews factor, Petitioner has a private interest in remaining free from 5 detention. “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of 6 physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533 7 U.S. at 690, 121 S.Ct. 2491. Petitioner was out of custody for over a year and a half prior to his re- 8 detention. During that time, Petitioner developed ties to the community and formed the normal 9 attachments of life. The length of time and the connections Petitioner made with his community during 10 that time create a powerful interest for Petitioner in his continued liberty. See Doe v Becerra, 787 F. 11 Supp. 3d 1083, 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2025). Thus, this factor favors a finding that Petitioner’s private 12 interest has been affected by his detention. 13 The second Mathews factor, the risk of erroneous deprivation to Petitioner, also weighs in 14 Petitioner's favor. See A.E. v. Andrews, No. 25-cv-00107-KES-SKO, 2025 WL 1424382, at *5 (E.D. 15 Cal. May 16, 2025) (“The risk of an erroneous deprivation [of liberty] is high” when “[the petitioner] 16 has not received any bond or custody redetermination hearing.”). Civil immigration detention is 17 “nonpunitive in purpose and effect” and is justified when a noncitizen presents as a danger to the 18 community or risk of flight. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690, 121 S.Ct. 2491; Padilla v. U.S. Immigr. & 19 Customs Enf't, 704 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1172 (W.D. Wash. 2023). 20 Petitioner has been detained for 9 months without having been provided a substantive bond 21 hearing before an immigration judge to evaluate his dangerousness and/or flight risk. Thus, the Court 22 concludes “the probable value of additional procedural safeguards” including a bond hearing is high. 23 A.E., 2025 WL 1424382, at *5. 24 Turning to the third Mathews factor, the Court acknowledges the Government has an interest 25 in the steady enforcement of its immigration laws but recognizes that the government's interest in 26 detaining Petitioner without any procedural protections is substantially “low.” Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 27 F. Supp. 3d 963, 970 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2025). 28 1 Custody hearings in immigration court are routine and impose a “minimal” cost on the government. 2 Doe, 787 F. Supp. 3d at 1094. 3 On balance, the Mathews factors favoring Petitioner show that due process requires a bond 4 hearing to justify Petitioner’s continued detention under § 1226(a). 5 D. Bond Hearing 6 Having determined that a bond hearing is required, the question of who bears the burden of 7 proof at said hearing must be answered. As other courts have also found, this Court concludes that 8 “the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger 9 to the community to justify denial of bond” and that the bond hearing must comport with the other 10 requirements of Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011). See Martinez v. Clark, 124 11 F.4th 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2024) (stating that “the BIA properly noted that the government bore the 12 burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Martinez is a danger to the community” with 13 respect to a bond hearing for a noncitizen detained under § 1226(c)); Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133, 14 159 (2d Cir. 2024) (affirming district court's order “requir[ing] the government to show at such a bond 15 hearing, by clear and convincing evidence, the need for Black's continued detention” under § 1226(c)); 16 German Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 214 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that in 17 order to justify a noncitizen's continued detention under § 1226(c) “the Government bears the burden 18 of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence. That evidence must be individualized and support a 19 finding that continued detention is needed to prevent him from fleeing or harming the community”). In 20 the event Petitioner is “determined not to be a danger to the community and not to be so great a flight 21 risk as to require detention without bond,” the immigration judge should consider Petitioner's financial 22 circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th 23 Cir. 2017); Black, 103 F.4th at 138 (The district court “correctly directed the immigration judge (“IJ”), 24 in setting his bond and establishing appropriate terms for his potential release, to consider his ability to 25 pay and alternative means of assuring appearance.”). 26 III. RECOMMENDATION 27 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of 28 habeas corpus be GRANTED, and Respondent be DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with a bond 1 hearing within fourteen (14) days before an IJ where the Government must demonstrate by clear and 2 convincing evidence that Petitioner is not a flight risk or a danger to the community, or in the 3 alternative, release Petitioner on appropriate conditions of supervision. 4 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 5 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 6 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within ten (10) 7 days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may file written 8 objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should be captioned, 9 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) 10 pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached 11 to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the 12 exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 13 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may 14 be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant 15 to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 16 time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th 17 Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit 18 Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate 19 Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: March 23, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28