Camacho Chopin: Enforcing Bond-Hearing Class Relief

On August 3, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow issued an order granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The two petitioners — Oliva Camacho Chopin and David Cruz Benavides — had been detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center without ever receiving an individualized custody determination. The court's narrow ruling required the government to provide each petitioner with a bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven days. The decision did not release either petitioner outright; it only compelled the government to hold a hearing.

Material Facts Treated as Uncontested

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. One earlier bond request was withdrawn after an immigration judge concluded that jurisdiction was lacking; the other was denied based on Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).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.

Parties' Positions

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).

Governing Law

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 remains in effect within the Central District of California notwithstanding a partial Ninth Circuit stay limiting its reach outside that district. 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.

Reasoning

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.

Exact Holding

The petition was granted. Each petitioner was entitled to an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The applicable clear-and-convincing burden at those hearings came from the Bautista class relief that the court enforced, rather than a new evidentiary rule created in this order.

Exact Disposition and Conditions

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.

What the Decision Did Not Decide

The court did not determine whether either petitioner should be released on bond, set a bond amount, or predict any outcome at the bond hearing. It expressly noted that petitioners did not argue the bond hearing would be futile. The ruling is a slip opinion with only a Westlaw citation available; it is not designated for publication and carries no formal precedential weight. Its practical reach flows primarily from the Bautista class judgment rather than from any new legal ground the court broke. The governing class relief was then subject to a partial Ninth Circuit stay limiting its operation outside the Central District of California; this order concerned detention within that district.