OLDIN GONZALEZ
v.
DAVID HARDIN, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and must be released if one is not provided within ten days.
“The distinction matters because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention throughout removal proceedings, whereas aliens detained under § 1226(a) have the right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge.”
Establishes the critical legal distinction between the two detention statutes at issue in the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner, a Guatemalan citizen who entered the U.S. without inspection, is detained under mandatory detention provisions. He has a pending applicati…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandatory Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court are Oldin Gonzalez’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) and the Government's response (Doc. 6). For the following reasons, the petition is granted.
I. Background
Gonzalez is a native and citizen of Guatemala. (Doc. 1 at 3). He entered the United States without inspection on May 23, 2003 when he was seventeen years old. (Id.) He has no criminal convictions and is the sole support of his three United States citizen children. (Id.) Gonzalez has a pending application for cancelation of removal. (Id. at 7). He is currently detained by Respondents at the Glades County Detention Center in Moore Haven, Florida. (Id. at 1). He is being held under the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. 6 at 2)
II. Discussion
The core of the dispute before this Court is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) or § 1226(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) applies to Gonzalez. The distinction matters because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention throughout removal proceedings, whereas aliens detained under § 1226(a) have the right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. Gonzalez asks the Court to order the respondents to either release him or provide a prompt bond hearing. (Doc. 1 at 7-8).
Respondents argue that Gonzalez's continued detention does not violate the Constitution, that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this petition, that Gonzalez has not properly exhausted his administrative remedies, and that Gonzalez is not eligible for a bond hearing because he is properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. (Doc. 5).
The Court has rejected identical arguments in recent cases presenting the same issues. See Cetino v. Hardin, No. 2:25-cv- 1037-JES-DNF (M.D. Fla. December 12, 2025); Patel v. Parra, No. 2:25-cv-870-JES-NPM (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2025); Reyes Rodriguez v. Florida Southside Facility, No. 2:25-cv-1012-JES-DNF (M.D. Fla. December 15, 2025). In those cases, the Court was satisfied of its jurisdiction and found that the petitioners were being held in violation of their rights under the INA, entitling them to habeas relief. The Court′s reasons for granting habeas relief in those cases apply equally here.
As the Court explained in Cetino and Patel, it has jurisdiction because this action falls outside the scope of §§
1252(g) and (b)(9), and exhaustion is excused because it would be futile. And like the petitioners in the prior cases, Gonzalez’s detention is governed by § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2).
As a noncitizen detained under § 1226(a), Gonzalez is entitled to the statutory process under § 1226(a), which includes a bond hearing. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (“Federal regulations provide that aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention.”) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)). The Court is aware that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is the agency that schedules bond hearings. In other cases before this Court, Respondents have claimed they cannot direct the EOIR when to correct a bond hearing. Regardless, subjecting Gonzalez to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1) is unlawful. If Respondents are unable to ensure Gonzalez receives a § 1226(a) bond hearing within ten days, they must release him.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Oldin Gonzalez's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.
2. Within TEN (10) DAYS Respondents shall either provide Gonzalez with the statutory process required under § 1226, which includes a bond hearing or release him under reasonable conditions of supervision.
3. If Respondents release Gonzalez, they shall facilitate
his transportation from the detention facility by notifying his counsel when and where he may be collected.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment, and close the case. [fn 1]
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 9, 2026.
JOHN E. STEELE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[fn 1]: The Court is aware of a pending California case that certified a class action of aliens who are in immigration detention and being denied access to a bond hearing. See Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025). No final judgment has been issued in Bautista to bind the parties here. The Court finds no reason to dismiss or stay this case in the meantime.