Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

A.B.E.,
V.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
Petitioner,
Case No. 7:25-cv-195-WLS-AGH
28 U.S.C. § 2241
Warden, IRWIN COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner is a detainee at Irwin County Detention Center awaiting rem.oval proceedings.
He seeks habeas corpus relief based 011 Respondents' refusal to provide him wi.tl1a bond. hearing
and 	the opportunity for pre-removal release while the removal proceedings ate pending.
Respondents contend that Petitioner's detentiot1 is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(6)(1)
and/or 8 U.S.C. § 1225(6)(2).
The Court reviewed Petitioner's application. The Court finds that Petitioner is currently
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and therefore not subject to mandatory detention as required
by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(6)(2). See J.A.J\!J. v. Streeval, No. 4:25-CV-342-CDL, 2025 \'(IL 3050094 (M.D.
Ga. Nov. 1, 2025); P.R.S. v. Streeva!, No. 4:25-CV-330-CDL, 2025 \XIL 3269947 (M.D. Ga. Nov.
24, 2025). 	Accordingly, Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief is granted to the extent
that Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing within SEVEN (7) DAYS to
deter1nh1e if the Petitioner may be released ofl. bo!id under § 1226(a)(2) and the aJ,plicabl~
regulations. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1 &1236.L. •
Also before the Court is· Respo11derits' 111otio1i to dismiss (ECF No:· 5), arguing ih part
that this case should be dismissed or stayed in light of Petitioner's membership in the "Bond
Eligible Class" certified in Maldo11ado Ba11tista v. Sc111ta,mz, No. 5:25-CV-01873°SSS 0BFM, 2025
\XIL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). 	Respondents later withdrew that motion(ECF No. 6)
in part, dropping their claim that the case should be dismissed or stayed based on membership
Case 7:25-cv-00195-WLS-AGH Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 2

in the J\tla!do11ado Bautista class, 1 but maintaining that the case should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction and because they contend that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). As
for Respondents' remaining grounds for dismissal, they acknowledge that the holdings in j./1.J\tl.
and P.R.S. would control the result in this case were the Court to follow the rationale in those
decisions. 	Because the Court adopts the rationale of those decisions, Respondents' motion to
dismiss (Doc. 5), to the extent it was not withdrawn, is DENIED. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED, tlus~n:'.day of January 2026.
/di~~W. LOUIS SANU-
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
:MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
' 	' 	- . .. 	-- 	-
1 Petitioner's membership in· tl1e Mt1ldo11,Mo /3alf/i..-ta .class has 110 effect on the Court's. dedsion for se,,ernl reasops.
First, only the named petitioners sought habeas relief in Maidonado Bt111tis!t1. Second, the named petitioners did not
seek nationwide habeas relief. Third, in granting dedaratoiy relief, the California District Court correctly noted
that habeas relief cmild only be afforded to class mefobers who were located within the boundaries of the Central
District of California. Id. at *14 (citing Ri1111.rfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,446 (2004) for the proposition that "habeas
jurisdiction lie[s.J 'in only one disu·ict: the district of_confinement'n).
2 The brevity of this order is appropriate given thnt the issue pre$ented is exactly tlw same ;ls the issue previously
decided on nuinerous oCcasioi1s by the Court and }'et Respondents insist upon denying the relief that the Court
has found is required.
2
Case 7:25-cv-00195-WLS-AGH Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 2