{"id":374,"date":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=374"},"modified":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-09T12:00:00","slug":"cerro-huerta-bondi-ed-cal-recommends-granting-habeas-20-year-resident-mandatory-detention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=374","title":{"rendered":"Cerro Huerta v. Bondi \u2014 E.D. Cal. Recommends Granting Habeas Petition for 20-Year Resident Detained Under Mandatory-Detention Statute"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Cerro Huerta v. Bondi<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Eastern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-09<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
1:25-cv-00941-KES-HBK<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Immigration habeas corpus, INA \u00a7 1226(a) vs \u00a7 1225(b)(2), mandatory detention, applicant for admission, 20-year resident<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The petitioner, Marcelino Cerro Huerta, is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection in or around April 2001. He has lived continuously in the country for more than twenty years, has been married to his wife for twenty-four years, and has three United States citizen children, including a 10-year-old. He has had only minor encounters with law enforcement (a charge of driving without a license and failure to obey a traffic device) and no immigration enforcement contact prior to his recent arrest.<\/p>\n

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently apprehended him in the interior of the United States and placed him in standard removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. section 1229a. ICE detained him at the Mesa Verde Processing Center in Bakersfield, California and treated him as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2) \u2014 the statute that governs detention of noncitizens ‘seeking admission’ to the United States.<\/p>\n

He filed a counseled federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 raising two claims: that his detention under section 1225(b)(2) instead of section 1226(a) (the general detention statute that affords a bond hearing) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that his continued detention without a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The government moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and, on the merits, argued that section 1225(b)(2) governs.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The magistrate judge recommended denying the government’s motion to dismiss and granting the petition in part. On exhaustion, the court found that requiring the petitioner to first pursue administrative review through the Board of Immigration Appeals would be futile and would cause irreparable injury, given the BIA’s own recent precedent treating noncitizens like the petitioner as ineligible for bond.<\/p>\n

On the merits of the statutory claim, the court joined a growing line of Eastern District decisions holding that section 1225(b)(2) \u2014 by its plain terms applicable to noncitizens ‘seeking admission’ \u2014 does not reach noncitizens who, like the petitioner, were apprehended in the interior of the United States after years (here, over twenty) of continuous residence. The court reasoned that the ‘seeking admission’ framework was designed for those at or near the border, not for long-settled noncitizens. Because the petitioner is not ‘seeking admission,’ he is properly subject to section 1226(a), which requires an individualized custody determination and a bond hearing.<\/p>\n

The court therefore recommended that the district court grant the petition in part \u2014 not by ordering immediate release, but by directing the government either to release the petitioner or to provide him a bond hearing under section 1226(a) within seven calendar days. Because the statutory claim resolved the case, the court did not reach the Fifth Amendment due process claim.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n