UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

CARLOS JUSTINO BRAVO-DIAZ,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 2:25-cv-1013-JES-DNF

WARDEN MATTHEW MORDANT, et al.,

Respondents. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Carlos Justino Bravo-Diaz’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1), the government’s response (Doc. #7), and Bravo-Diaz’s reply (Doc. #9). For the below reasons, the Court grants the petition. Bravo-Diaz is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection on July 1, 2010. In May 2025, Bravo-Diaz applied for asylum, and the application remains pending. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) apprehended Bravo-Diaz on October 24, 2025, and detained him in Alligator Alcatraz without a bond hearing. He has since been transferred to the Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez, Mississippi. ICE commenced removal proceedings on November 20, 2025. The core of the dispute before this Court is whether

(b)(2) or § 1226(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) applies to Bravo-Diaz. The distinction matters because § 1225(b)(2) mandates detention, while noncitizens detained under § 1226(a) have the right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. Bravo-Diaz asks the Court to order the respondents to

either release him or provide a prompt bond hearing. The respondents argue (1)

(g) and (b)(9) strip the Court of jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claims, (2) the petitioner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, and (3) the petitioner is properly detained under § 1225 and is not eligible for a bond hearing. The Court rejected these arguments in recent cases that presented the same issues, Patel v. Hardin, No. 2:25-cv-870-JES-NPM,

(M.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2025) and Cetino v. Hardin, 2:25-cv-1037-JES-DNF,

(M.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2025). The Court’s reasons for granting habeas relief in those cases apply equally here. As the Court explained in Patel and Cetino, 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 those cases, Bravo-Diaz’s detention is governed by § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2). As a noncitizen detained under § 1226(a), Bravo-Diaz has a right to a bond hearing. See Jennings v. Rodriguez,

(2018) (“Federal regulations provide that aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention.”) (citing

(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED : Carlos Justino Bravo-Diaz’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) is GRANTED. (1) Within ten (10) days of this Opinion and Order, the respondents shall either (1) bring Bravo-Diaz for an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge or (2) release Bravo-Diaz under reasonable conditions of supervision. If the respondents release Bravo-Diaz, they shall facilitate his transportation from the detention facility by notifying his counsel when and where he may be collected. (2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment, and close the case. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida this 16th day of December 2025.

J9GHN E. STEELE SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All parties of record