Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

A.H.C.C.,
v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
Petitioner,
Case No. 7:25-cv-192-WLS-ALS
28 U.S.C. § 2241
WARDEN, IRWIN CO. DETENTION
CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
Before the Cowt is Petitioner's application for habeiis relief pursuant to 28 D.S.C. § 2241.
(ECF No. l ). In relevant part, Petitioner seeks ii writ of habeas cotpus requiring Respondents to
provide him with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) of the hnmigratioti and Nationality
Act. Id. at 8. Respondents moved to dismiss but subsequently withdrew that motion and now oppose
Petitioner's request for habeas relief. (ECF Nos. 6-8). Having reviewed Petition(;lr's application, the
Court finds that Petitioner is cun·ently detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and therefore not subject to
mandatory detention as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). 1 See J.A.M v. Streeva/, No. 4:25-CV-342-
CDL, 2025 WL 3050094 (M.D. Ga. Nov. I, 2025); P.R.S. v. Streewil, No. 4:25-CV-330-CDL, 2025
WL 3269947 (M.D. Ga. Nov.24, 2025). Accordingly, Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief
is granted to the extentthat Respond~nts shaH provide Petitionet witha bond hearing ,vlthin SEVEN·
1 To the extent that the Parties make arguments based on a belief that Petitioner is a member of the "Bond Eligible Class"
previously certified in the matter of Maldonado Bau/is.ta v. Santacruz, No .. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, any potential
membership in that class has no effect on the Court'sdecision for several reasons, First, habeas relief was sought only by
the named petitioners in that case. Second, the 1,ained petitioners did not seek nationwide habeas relief. Third, in granting
declaratory relief, the. District Court correctly noted that habeas relief could only be afforded to .class members who were
located within the boundaries of the Central District of California. Maldonado Bautista, No. 5:2.5-cv-01873-SSS-BFM,
••• F. Supp. 3d. ····, 2025 WL 3713987, at* 14 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) (citing Rumsfelcl v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446
(2004), for the proposition that "habeas jurisdiction lie(s] 'in only one district: the district of confinement'").
Case 7:25-cv-00192-WLS-ALS Document 9 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 2

(7) DAYS to determine if Petitioner may be released on bond under§ 1226(a)(2) and the applicable
regulations. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1 & 1236.1. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED, this &#day of January 2026.
Ml~w. Lours-SANDS
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
'The brevity of this order is appropriate given that the issue presented is exactly the same as the issue previously decide.ct
on numerous occasions by the Court and yet Respondents insist upon denying the relief that the Court has found is
required.
2
Case 7:25-cv-00192-WLS-ALS Document 9 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 2