Villanueva-Rollo v. Noem et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sandra Patricia Villanueva-Rollo,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-04667-PHX-KML (JZB)
ORDER
Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 (Doc. 1.) The petition alleges
petitioner “was apprehended on 5/18/2022 entering the U.S. and was released on parole,
on her own recognizance, on 5/19/2022.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) Petitioner was subsequently
arrested and is currently detained at the Eloy Federal Detention Center. Petitioner argues
her parole was not properly revoked and she has been misclassified as an individual subject
to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). District courts have split on the latter
issue as set forth in Zepeda v. Noem, CV-25-4236-PHX-KML (JFM), ECF No. 13 at 2–3
(D. Ariz. Dec. 11, 2025). On December 11, 2025, the Seventh Circuit concluded the
Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
were “not likely to succeed on the merits of their argument” regarding “mandatory
detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).” Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 25-
3050, 2025 WL 3552514, at *9 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025).
1 Petitioner also filed an expedited motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary
injunction. (Doc. 2.) Because the court is directing respondents to show cause why the
petition should not be granted, the court finds petitioner is not entitled to preliminary relief
at this juncture. The motion will therefore be denied without prejudice.
Case 2:25-cv-04667-KML--JZB Document 5 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Based on existing district court authority and the Seventh Circuit’s opinion,
respondents must show cause why the petition should not be granted to the extent that
petitioner be provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226.2 Respondents must also
address the factual and legal basis for revoking petitioner’s parole, supported by competent
evidence showing compliance with all governing statutes and regulations concerning
parole.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Petitioner’s expedited motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary
injunction (Doc. 2) is denied without prejudice.
2. Counsel for petitioner must immediately serve the petition upon respondents.
3. If not already issued, the clerk’s office must issue any properly completed
summonses.
4. The clerk of court must immediately transmit by email a copy of this order and the
petition to the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, to the attention of
Katherine Branch at katherine.branch@usdoj.gov, Melissa Kroeger at
melissa.kroeger@usdoj.gov, Lon Leavitt at lon.leavitt@usdoj.gov, and Theo
Nickerson at Theo.Nickerson2@usdoj.gov.
5. Respondents must show cause no later than December 22, 2025 why the petition
should not be granted. Petitioner may file a reply no later than December 23, 2025.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2025.
2 The petition seeks relief in the form of release from detention and a prohibition on
removing petitioner from the United States. (Doc. 1 at 15.) Courts handling similar cases
have granted bond hearings, not release. Quinapanta v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-795-WMC,
2025 WL 3157867, at *6 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 12, 2025) (“more than 45 district courts have
. . . ordered bond hearings”).
Case 2:25-cv-04667-KML--JZB Document 5 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 2