Order | Filed: September 11, 2026
| Entered: September 11, 2026
(HC) Duran Munoz v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al
Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee | California Eastern
Minute Order
MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Edward J Davila on 9/11/2026: As an initial matter, the Court is inclined to find that Petitioner's detention is controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). As Respondents' acknowledge, their argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to applicants for admission arrested in the interior of the country has been rejected by the Ninth Circuit. See Otilio B.F. v. Andrews, et al., 809 F. Supp. 3d 1038, 1044, 1050 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (finding that petitioner, who had immigrated to the United States at two years old and had a pending U-Visa application, was not actively seeking lawful entry under § 1225(b)(2)(A) "because he had already entered the United States--over twenty years ago" and if anything was "seeking to remain in the United States") (emphasis in original).
The Court, however, cannot say on this record whether Petitioner was lawfully detained pursuant to § 1226(a) or was entitled to pre-deprivation process prior to his arrest. First, there is a dispute as to whether Petitioner had a valid U-Visa or only had a pending application for a U-Visa at the time of his arrest. Records produced by Respondents are conflicting on this point. Additionally, the parties have not fully briefed the significance of the distinction. Second, it appears Petitioner was detained following a criminal arrest for assault with a deadly weapon and disorderly conduct. Neither party has addressed the significance of this fact with respect to Petitioner's due process claims. See Perez Flores v. Warden, No. 1:26-CV-06283-JLT-EGC, 2026 WL 2532099 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2026) (finding that DACA recipient had a liberty interest in continued freedom, but that recent DUI charge rendered a post-deprivation hearing the appropriate remedy). Finally, Respondents claim that Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear (placing him in removal proceedings) and a warrant around the time of his arrest, but have not produced either document.
Accordingly, by 9/25/2026, Respondents are ORDERED to file a supplemental response addressing the following factual questions: 1. Is it Respondents' position that Petitioner did not have a U-Visa at the time of his arrest and detention by ICE? If so, what was the status of Petitioner's U-Visa application at the time of his arrest? Respondents must include documentary support for that position beyond what is in the current record.
2. If Respondents maintain that Petitioner did have a valid U-Visa at the time of his detention, under what authority could DHS arrest and detain Petitioner?
3. Is it Respondents' position that § 1226(a) applies because Petitioner is currently in removal proceedings? If so, Respondents must include the warrant for Petitioner's arrest as well as the Notice to Appear he was purportedly served.
4. What effect do Petitioner's recent criminal charges have on his due process claims?
Petitioner may file a further reply by 10/2/2026. (Text Only Entry) (Thomas, Julia)