A.H.C.C. v. Warden, Irwin Co, Detention Center, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION A.H.C.C., : .

Petitioner, : . : Case No. 7:25-cv-192-WLS-ALS : 28 ULS.C. § 2241 WARDEN, IRWIN CO, DETENTION : CENTER, ef ai., : Respondents. : Before the Court is Petitioner’s' application for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C..§ □□□□□ (ECE No. Von: relevant ‘part, Petitioner ‘seeks a writ of. habeas. corpus requiring Respondents: to □□□□ provide him with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. /d. at 8. Respondents moved to dismiss but subsequently withdrew that motion and now oppose. |.

Petitioner’s request for habeas relief, (ECF Nos. 6-8). Having reviewed Petitioner’s application, □□□ Court finds that Petitioner is currently 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 JAM. v. Streeval, No. 4:25-CV-342- CDL, 2025 WL 3050094 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2025); P.R.S. v. Streeval, No. 4:25-CV-330-CDL, 2025.

WL 3269947 (M.D, Ga. Nov. 24, 2025). Accordingly, Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief ' To the extent that the Parties make arguments based on a belief that Petitioner is a meniber of the “Bond Eligible Class” previously certified in the matter of Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, any □□□□□□□□□ membership in that class has no effect on the Court's decision for several reasons. First, habeas relief was sought only the named petitioners in that case, Second, the nated petitioners did not seek nationwide habeas relief. Third, in granting declaratory relief, the: District Court correctly noted that habeas relief could only be afforded to class. members who were iocaied within the boundaries of the Central District of California, Maldonado Bautista, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F, Supp. 3d. ----, 2025 WL 3713987, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446 (2004), for the proposition. that “habeas jurisdiction lie[s] ‘in only one district: the district of confinement’). (7) DAYS to determine if Petitioner may be released on bond under § 1226(a)(2) and the applicable regulations. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1 & 1236.12 IT IS SO. ORDERED, this G¥ day of January 2026.

W, LOUIS SANDS U.S, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ? The brevity of this order is appropriate given ihat 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.