Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

E.E.R.B.,
v.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
Petitioner,
Case No. 7:25-cv-203-WLS-AGH
28 U.S.C. § 2241
\Varden, IRWIN COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner is a detainee at Ii:win County Detention Centex. awaiting removal
proceedings. 	He seeks habeas. corpus relief based on Respondents' refusal to ptovide
him 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)(l) and/or 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
The Court reviewed Petitioner's application. 	The Court finds that Petitioner is
ci1rrently 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). See J.A.M. v. Streeval, No. 4:25,CV-342-
CDL, 2Q25 WL 3Q(i0094 (MJ), Ga .. Nqv. 1, 2025); P.JJ.$, v, $trfeval, No. 4;25-QV-3~0:
CDL, 2025 \VL 3269947 (M.D. Ga; Nov. 24, 2025). Acco1:dingly, Petitioner's application
for 	habeas 	corpus relief is 	granted to 	the 	extent that Respondents 	shall provide
Petitioner with a bo11d hearingwithinSEVEN (7) DAYS to determine if the PEJtitioner
Case 7:25-cv-00203-WLS-AGH Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 2

may be released on bond under§ 1226(a)(2) and the applicable regulations. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 236. l & 1236.1.t, 2
IT IS SO ORDERED, this ~#day of January, 2026.
ML~w. LOUIS SANDS
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
1 To the extent that, the parties. make arguments based on. a •belief that.Petitioner is a membe\•.ofthe
"BondEHgible Classucertifiedin Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5;25°CW01873-SSS-BFM, 2025
WL 3713987 (C.D. CaL Dec. 1.8, 2025), any membership in that.class has no effect onthe Court's decision
for several reasons. 	Fh;st, only the named petitioners sought habeas relief ill' 111aldonado Bautisla.
Second, the named petitioners did not seek nationwide habeas relief. Third, in granting declaratory rel1ef,
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. Jd. at *14 (citing Riuns(eld
v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446 (2004) for the proposition that "habeasjt1risdiction lie[s] 'in only one district:
the district of confinement"'),
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 Respondents insist upon denying the
relief that the Court has found is required.
Case 7:25-cv-00203-WLS-AGH Document 7 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 2