Vicente Avalos Garcia entered the United States without inspection in or about 2018, when he was about 19 years old, and has resided here continuously since. He has no criminal history and no final order of removal. ICE arrested him on January 24, 2026, during a vehicle stop in Maryland. The vehicle stop was not based on criminal conduct on the part of Avalos Garcia, but rather because the vehicle was registered to another person with an alleged derogatory immigration history. He was transferred from Maryland to the California City Detention Facility. According to the petition, he was denied any opportunity to seek release on recognizance or bond before ICE or an immigration judge.
The government argued that Avalos Garcia is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which does not provide for a bond hearing. The magistrate judge rejected that position, concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) — the general framework governing detention of noncitizens present in the United States and subject to removal — applies instead. The court noted that until DHS changed its policy in July 2025, the government had consistently applied § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2), to noncitizens residing in the United States who were detained and subject to removal.
The findings and recommendations align with a substantial body of district court authority. The court cited Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 802 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025), which concluded after thorough analysis that the government's interpretation of § 1225 belies the statutory text of the Immigration and Nationality Act, canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice. The court also cited Cardona-Lozano v. Noem, 2025 WL 3218244 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2025), which observed that district courts across the country have repeatedly found that DHS and the Board of Immigration Appeals' construction of the Immigration and Nationality Act is incorrect and that petitioners who have long resided in the United States but are being held under § 1225 are entitled to relief.
The government cited the Fifth Circuit's decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), and the Eighth Circuit's decision in Avila v. Bondi, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026), both of which sided with the government's reading of § 1225(b)(2). The magistrate judge found neither persuasive, instead crediting — as articulated in Gurvinder Singh v. Chestnut, 2026 WL 413839 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2026) — the Seventh Circuit's analysis in Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 161 F.4th 1048 (7th Cir. 2025), which concluded the government was not likely to prevail on the merits that a similarly situated petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A), and the dissent in Buenrostro-Mendez. The court also noted that neither the Fifth nor Eighth Circuit decision is binding in the Eastern District of California.
The recommended remedy is a bond hearing — not immediate release — to be held within seven days of the district judge's adoption of the findings and recommendations. At that hearing, Avalos Garcia bears the burden of demonstrating he is not a flight risk or danger to the community, and he is entitled to have counsel present. The court declined to recommend reimbursement of travel costs, citing the district court's recent ruling in Martinez-Fernandez v. Warden, 2026 WL 936967 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2026), which held that monetary relief is not available in a habeas action. The court also denied requests to enjoin any automatic stay of a future bond order and to preemptively restrict ICE from imposing conditions of release, finding both requests speculative where no bond hearing has yet occurred.
The government's alternative request to stay the case pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, was also recommended for denial, with the court noting that a stay would not serve the interests of a petitioner who has been detained since January 2026 and would strain judicial resources in one of the highest-caseload districts in the country.