Filogonio Ramirez-Contretras v. Kristi Noem, et al.

No. 2:25-cv-02218-RFB-EJY · United States District Court for the District of Nevada · December 8, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-02218-RFB-EJY

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted Filogonio Ramirez-Contretras’s motion for a preliminary injunction challenging his detention at the Nevada Southern Detention Center. The court ordered Respondents to provide an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), prohibited denial of bond based on mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), and required release if the hearing was not conducted by December 12, 2025. The court found likely violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act and procedural and substantive due process.

Holdings

  1. The district court had habeas jurisdiction to review Petitioner's challenge to the lawfulness of his detention because the relevant jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 did not apply.
  2. Petitioner established a likelihood of success on his claim that, as a long-term resident arrested in the interior, he was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2), and therefore was entitled to an individualized bond hearing.
  3. Petitioner established a likelihood of success on his procedural and substantive due process challenges to prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing.
  4. Petitioner satisfied all four Winter factors and was entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring a bond hearing and related interim relief.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court had habeas jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of Petitioner's immigration detention notwithstanding the INA's jurisdiction-stripping provisions.
  2. Whether Petitioner was likely to succeed in establishing that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2), governed his detention and entitled him to an individualized bond hearing.
  3. Whether Petitioner's prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing likely violated procedural and substantive due process.
  4. Whether Petitioner satisfied the Winter factors for a preliminary injunction.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (9)

  • Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025)(followed by immigration judge; not adopted by district court)
  • Escobar Salgado v. Mattos, No. 2:25-cv-01872-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 3205356 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2025)(followed)
  • Hernandez Duran v. Bernacke, No. 2:25-cv-2105-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 3237451, at *4 (D. Nev. Nov. 19, 2025)(followed)
  • Jacobo Ramirez v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-02136-RFB-MDC, 2025 WL 3270137, at *5-6 (D. Nev. Nov. 24, 2025)(followed)
  • Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)(followed)
  • Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 758 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended (Mar. 11, 2014)(followed)
  • Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 (1976)(followed)
  • Aroldo Rodriguez Diaz v. Merrick Garland, Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1206 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
  • Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 995-96 (9th Cir. 2017)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…