Nationwide Class Relief Granted in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz

Due to recent changes in how ICE and the Immigration Court handle certain cases—especially for individuals who entered without inspection (EWI)—many clients are being informed that the Immigration Judge has “no jurisdiction” to grant them bond. That’s not the end of the story. Here is the step-by-step process we are now following for many detained clients in Nevada: 1. First Step: Bond Request in Immigration Court We first file a bond motion in Immigration Court, like normal. At the bond hearing, the Immigration Judge will often say something like: “I don’t have jurisdiction to set bond because DHS says you’re detained under INA § 235 / 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” In many current cases, the IJ does not weigh danger or flight risk at all – they deny bond only because they believe the law doesn’t allow them to set bond. We need this denial on the record so we can present it to the federal judge and show exactly what is happening. 2. Second Step: Habeas Petition in Federal Court After bond is denied for “lack of jurisdiction,” we file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (federal court). In that petition, we argue that: The government is using the wrong detention statute; People who are long-term residents arrested in Nevada and in regular § 1229a removal proceedings) should be detained, if at all, under INA § 236 / 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which allows bond; and The Immigration Court is wrongly refusing even to consider bond. 3. What the Federal Judge Has Been Doing (Current Pattern) In recent similar cases, the federal judge (Judge Boulware) has: Rejected the government’s “no bond jurisdiction” theory, and Issued orders that: Require the government to give a new bond hearing by a specific deadline, and Make clear that, at that hearing, the Immigration Judge cannot deny bond based on “no jurisdiction. Instead, the Immigration Judge must go back to the normal bond standard under § 1226(a): Consider whether the individual is a danger to the community; Consider whether you are a flight risk; and Weigh your family ties, work history, community support, and alternatives to detention. In other words, we get a real bond hearing on the merits, not just a one-line “no jurisdiction” denial. 4. If the Government Does Not Comply In those same cases, the judge has also made clear that: If the government does not schedule and hold the new bond hearing by the court’s deadline, → they must release the person from custody. So, the government’s options become: Hold a proper bond hearing on time, or Release the individual if they cannot or will not comply with the federal court order. 5. How Your Federal Case Records Are Managed (PACER, Sealing, and Access) Federal court records are handled very differently from state court records. Our office has an attorney PACER account (the federal courts’ online system) that we use to file documents and to monitor your case. You are welcome to create your own PACER account if you are able to and wish to see what is publicly available in your case. However, it’s important to understand: Immigration-related cases often involve sensitive personal information, and, under Nevada law and court practice, portions of these records may be sealed or partially sealed. That means not everything will be visible to you in PACER, even if you create your own login. Some filings, attachments, or orders may only be accessible to the parties’ attorneys and the court. We will always keep you informed about important filings and orders in your case. If you’re interested in setting up your own PACER account, we can provide general guidance on where to start. However, please note that your access will be limited by federal and state confidentiality rules. https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account Please note: this link goes directly to PACER — it is not managed by our office. Important Notes for Clients Every case is different; past results do not guarantee future outcomes, even if the facts are similar. The federal judge can still decide that detention is lawful. Laws and policies can change. All of this is to be reviewed at the time of your specific case review.

On September 9, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued a landmark ruling in Maldonado Vázquez v. Feeley et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY, granting a preliminary injunction and ordering the same-day release of our client, Miguel Maldonado Vázquez, from ICE custody. The court found that DHS’s use of the automatic stay provision under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2) — which blocks Immigration Judge bond orders — violated Mr. Maldonado’s constitutional rights, both facially and as applied. This litigation began as a dual complaint and petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed on behalf of Mr. Maldonado and similarly situated individuals. The complaint includes a putative class action challenging the systemic use of the automatic stay to override Immigration Judge bond determinations. The court’s injunction — one of the first known in the District of Nevada addressing this issue — now paves the way for broader relief and future challenges. The decision came just days after the Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of Yajure Hurtado , 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), adopting DHS’s sweeping new interpretation of INA § 1225(b)(2) to mandate detention for nearly all noncitizens who entered without inspection, regardless of their ties to the United States or location of apprehension. In direct contrast, the federal court affirmed that due process cannot be suspended by regulation, and that liberty must be protected even in the face of bureaucratic overreach. Mr. Maldonado, a longtime Las Vegas resident, father of three U.S. citizen children, and small business owner, was detained in July 2025 during a roadside stop far from any border or port of entry. Despite having no criminal history and deep community ties, ICE invoked the automatic stay to prevent his release after an Immigration Judge found he posed no danger or flight risk. Our legal team argued that the automatic stay deprived Mr. Maldonado of due process and prolonged his detention unlawfully. The court agreed. This litigation was initiated by our small team in Las Vegas — not by a national organization, but by a local legal team committed to protecting our clients and resisting injustice in our own community. We drew strength and strategy from prior cases, including Herrera Torralba v. Feeley , Case No. 2:25-cv-01366-RFB-DJA (D. Nev.), and Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock , Case No. 3:25-cv-05240 (W.D. Wash.), whose counsel we thank for their foundational work. We are also deeply appreciative of the assistance provided by both local and national chapters of the ACLU. These cases helped expose the systemic misuse of the automatic stay and the absence of lawful DHS certifications, and we are proud to have carried that momentum forward in Nevada. The challenges we faced were immense. Transfers, silence, procedural gamesmanship — all designed to break resolve. But we refused to bend. This victory is a token of resistance. It has already helped others in Nevada secure release, restore hope, and reclaim their voice. And it reminds us that even in the face of systemic injustice, justice is still possible. The case remains active. Our request for declaratory relief is pending, and we continue to pursue class-wide remedies for those subjected to unconstitutional detention under DHS’s automatic stay policy. We will also continue to challenge the Board of Immigration Appeals’ holding in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, which seeks to expand mandatory detention far beyond statutory limits. This fight is not over — and we remain steadfast in our commitment to liberty, due process, and community defense. We will continue to fight. We will continue to file. And we will not be moved. For press inquiries or to learn more about our litigation efforts, contact: Lipp Law LLC 📍 2580 Sorrel St, Las Vegas, NV 89146 📧 info@lipplaw.vegas Case Citation: Maldonado Vázquez v. Feeley et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.)