govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_26-cv-20257-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 

 
 
MYNOR TOBAR NAJARRO, 
 
 Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
ACTING FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 
USCIS MIAMI FIELD OFFICE, et al. 
 
 Respondents. 
________________________________/ 
ORDER 
 
CHARACTERISTIC of the undersigned’s upbringing, surrounded by law -abiding 
immigrants who left oppressive conditions in search of a rule- following citizenry in a 
country that offered a better life, there was one maxim that rang true above all others: one 
respected and followed his parents even when they were wrong. 
Today that same principle applies with the concept of vertical precedent. Despite 
the superior and well -reasoned plain- meaning analysis of the dissenting judge in 
Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Federal Detention Center, Miami, 2026 WL 1243395 (11th 
Cir. May 6, 2026) (Lagoa, J.), this Court is duty -bound to follow the majority opinion 
authored by its parent court. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that aliens who are detained 
within the country, rather than upon arrival at the border, are not subject to mandatory 
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) but are instead entitled to a bond hearing under 
8 U.S.C. § 1226. Because § 1225(b)(2)(A) by its plain language applies to non-admitted 
aliens who are inspected in the interior, the rule created in Alvarez should not have come 
Case 1:26-cv-20257-AHS Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2026 Page 1 of 3
2 
 
from any court but instead from Congress. 
It is Congress who is empowered to enact this country’s immigration laws, and 
Congress saw fit to fashion a mandatory detention scheme in § 1225(b)(2) and a more 
flexible scheme permitting detention, bond, or parole under § 1226(a). In this Court’s 
view, Alvarez effectively dismantles that scheme contrary to congressional will. That the 
Executive branch proceeded against aliens subject to § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory detention 
scheme pursuant to § 1226(a) for nearly 30 years demonstrates only the Executive’s 
discretion in enforcement matters, not § 1225(b)(2)’s inapplicability. Executive 
memoranda indicates that decision was a conscious choice. See 62 Fed. Reg. 10312, 
10323 (March 6, 1997) (“Despite being applicants for admission, aliens who are present 
without having been admitted or paroled (formerly referred to as aliens who entered 
without inspection) will be eligible for bond and bond redetermination.”) (emphasis 
added). 
Accordingly, in this Court’s view, Alvarez interprets sections 1225(b)(2)(A) and 
1226(a) in a way that effectively eliminates one of the two congressionally authorized 
means of removing aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States. The result is 
both damage to the political will as expr essed by Congress and also to the Executive’s 
prerogative in choosing between multiple lawful means to achieve a common end. While 
the insistence of courts to do Congress’s work has historically resulted in consequences 
damaging to the country, inferior courts must follow their appellate authorities —right or 
wrong. Consequently, this Court faithfully follows binding precedent as expressed in 
Alvarez. 
Courts maintain authority and jurisdiction to grant writs of habeas corpus when 
Case 1:26-cv-20257-AHS Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2026 Page 2 of 3
3 
 
aliens are unlawfully held in immigration detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Zadvydas v. 
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, Petitioner is being 
held in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Accordingly, it is hereby 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 
1. To the extent Petitioner seeks an individualized bond hearing , the Petition for 
Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED; 
2. The government is ORDERED to give Petitioner an individualized bond hearing 
no later than Thursday, May 28, 2026; 
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case, CANCEL all hearings and 
deadlines, and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions. 
 DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 21st day of 
May 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 
Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF 
 
Case 1:26-cv-20257-AHS Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2026 Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight