Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
U.A-H..,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden, IRWIN COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO.: 7:26-CV-18 (WLS-AGH)
ORDER
Petitioner is a detainee at the Irwin Detention Center awaiting removal proceedings.
Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief based on Respondents’ refusal to provide Petitioner with
a bond hearing and the opportunity for pre-removal release while the removal proceedings are
pending. 	Respondents contend that Petitioner’s detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(1) and/or 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(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(b)(2).1 See J.A.M. v. Streeval, No. 4:25-CV-342-CDL, 2025 WL
3050094 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2025); P.R.S. v. Streeval, 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 extent that Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing to
1 To the extent that the parties make arguments based on a belief that Petitioner is a member of the
“Bond Eligible Class” certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025
WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), any membership in that class has no effect on the Court’s
decision for several reasons. 	First, only the named petitioners sought habeas relief in Maldonado
Bautista. 	Second, the named petitioners did not seek nationwide habeas relief. 	Third, in granting
declaratory relief, the California 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. Id. at
*14 (citing Rumsfeld 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 7:26-cv-00018-WLS-AGH Document 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 2

2
determine if the Petitioner may be released on bond under § 1226(a)(2) and the applicable
regulations. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1 & 1236.1.2
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of February, 2026.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 The brevity of this order is appropriate given that the issue presented is exactly the same as the issue
previously decided on numerous occasions by the Court and yet Respondent insists upon denying the
relief that the Court has found is required.
Case 7:26-cv-00018-WLS-AGH Document 8 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 2