Oscar Danilo Montealto Garcia v. Todd Lyons, et al.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

(ECF 11; ECF 13.) On May 13, 2026, the parties filed a joint status report and supplemental brief responding to inquiries from the Court, including the authority for a bond hearing and the status of Petitioner’s 4 Petitioner also cites what appears to be a nonexistent case: Sanchez-Perez v. Garland, 2023 WL 5663021, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023). (ECF 1 at 8.) withholding of removal proceedings. (ECF 12.) With an unopposed petition, the Court rules in conformance therewith.5 ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered (1) granting the petition; and (2) enjoining Respondents from continuing to detain Petitioner unless no later than May 20, 2026, he is provided with an individualized bond hearing at which the government must bear the 5 The Supreme Court has made clear that 8 U.S.C. § 1231 applies to noncitizens, like Petitioner, “who were removed from the United States but later reentered without authorization, were subject to reinstated orders of removal, and then sought withholding of removal based on fear of persecution in the particular countries designated by their removal orders.” Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 526 (2021). The high court has also made clear that such individuals do not have a statutory right to a bond hearing.

Authorities cited in the passage: Sanchez-Perez v. Garland, 2023 WL 5663021, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2023) · Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U