Camacho Chopin: Enforcing Bond-Hearing Class Relief

Oliva Camacho Chopin and David Cruz Benavides asked the federal court for immediate release or, alternatively, individualized bond hearings. Both were detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center without an initial custody determination. On August 3, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow granted their habeas petition and ordered individualized bond hearings within seven days. The order required release within eight days if a hearing had not been provided. It is ECF 13 in Camacho Chopin v. Mullin, No. 5:26-cv-04114-DTB (C.D. Cal.).

The government did not contest the material facts

ICE detained Camacho Chopin and Cruz Benavides in separate 2026 arrests without providing an initial custody determination. Both had lived in the United States for decades and presented evidence relevant to flight risk and danger. Camacho Chopin’s bond request was withdrawn after the assigned immigration judge ruled in another matter that he lacked jurisdiction; Cruz Benavides’s request was denied based on Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Because the government did not oppose the merits, the district court treated the petitioners’ material allegations as uncontested under Local Civil Rule 7-12.

Issue

Whether two noncitizens detained under circumstances that place them within the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz are entitled to an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and whether their continued detention without such a hearing violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee.

The government opposed joinder but conceded hearing eligibility

Petitioners argued that they are members of the Bond Eligible Class, that their detention without an initial custody determination violates 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and applicable class relief, and that continued detention without a hearing violates Fifth Amendment due process. They sought immediate release or, alternatively, an individualized bond hearing.

Respondents raised a threshold objection that joinder of the two petitioners was improper given their different nationalities, arrest dates, locations, and bond postures. On the merits, however, respondents acknowledged that both petitioners appear to fall within the Bond Eligible Class and that, as a result, they are entitled to a bond hearing consistent with Bautista. Respondents did not oppose the grant of a hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

The order enforced the existing class judgment

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), which authorizes habeas relief for persons held in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. It relied on the declaratory judgment entered in Bautista v. Santacruz / Bautista v. Noem (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), which the August 3 order described as remaining in effect within the Central District of California despite a partial appellate stay. The court also applied 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19 and 1236.1, and invoked Local Civil Rule 7-12 to treat unopposed facts and arguments as conceded.

The concessions supported the hearing remedy

The court resolved the case on two independent grounds. First, because respondents declined to oppose the merits of the habeas claims, the court treated the petition’s facts and legal arguments as conceded under Local Rule 7-12, a non-opposition that itself supplied a sufficient basis for relief. Second, respondents affirmatively acknowledged that petitioners appear to be Bond Eligible Class members entitled to Bautista hearings, effectively conceding the central legal question. The court declined to find joinder improper, noting that both petitioners assert identical legal claims arising from the same governmental practice. The court concluded that continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violated 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and Fifth Amendment due process.

The hearing order placed the burden on the government

The petition was granted. Each petitioner was entitled to an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The operative order expressly placed the clear-and-convincing burden on the government, citing the Bautista relief and another district decision.

The deadlines had separate consequences

The order required respondents to: (1) provide each petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within seven days of August 3, 2026; (2) furnish the conducting immigration judge with a copy of this order; (3) release both petitioners within eight days of the order if no bond hearing had been provided by that deadline; and (4) file a status report within two business days of each hearing or each release. The immigration judge retained responsibility for the bond decision under the governing legal standard.

The immigration judge would decide bond

The immigration judge retained discretion to decide whether to release each petitioner on bond, based on relevant factors such as criminal and immigration history, residence, family ties, employment history, and compliance with prior orders. The judge had to explain the decision orally or in writing. The court noted that petitioners had not argued a bond hearing would be futile.