Briseno Acuna v. LaRose et al

1
25cv3464-LL-KSC
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KARLA BRISENO ACUNA,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior
Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center,
et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25cv3464-LL-KSC
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[ECF No. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Karla Briseno Acuna’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The matter is fully briefed, and the
Court deems it suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 7.1. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus and ORDERS an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who came to America in 2006 without authorization.
ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”) ¶ 29. She is the mother of a U.S.-born child and has no criminal history.
Id. ¶¶ 31, 33. On November 11, 2025, DHS arrested and detained Petitioner at her
regularly-scheduled ICE check-in appointment. Id. ¶ 34. She has remained detained ever
since. Id. ¶ 11. This is because DHS charged Petitioner as an alien under § 1225(b)(2)
Case 3:25-cv-03464-LL-KSC Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
25cv3464-LL-KSC
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
instead of § 1226(a). 	See generally 	id. The former mandating detention, the latter
permitting release on bond when it is determined that the alien is not a danger to others or
a flight risk and the like. Petitioner argues that DHS’s classification of her was wrong.
See generally id. Therefore, on December 8, 2025, she petitioned this Court to be
reclassified as an alien eligible for a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Id. Finding this claim
to be dispositive, the Court declines to rule on Petitioner’s other claims.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Jurisdiction
Courts have long had jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus to petitioners held
in custody “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C § 2241(c)(3). In doing so, we carry out the “historic purpose of the writ,” namely
“to relieve detention by executive authorities without judicial trial.” Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001). Had Petitioner sought to challenge the Government’s decision
to execute any removal order, it would bar this Court’s review. See Arce v. United States,
899 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 2018) (applying 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)’s “jurisdiction-stripping
power to actions challenging the Attorney General’s discretionary decisions to initiate
proceedings, adjudicate cases, and execute removal orders”). But Petitioner only contests
the Government’s purported legal authority to subject her to mandatory detention under
§ 1225(b)(2), so the Court has jurisdiction to weigh in. See Ibarra-Perez v. United States,
154 F.4th 989, 998 (9th Cir. 2025) (noting that courts often have “jurisdiction” to hear a
claim “premised on a lack of legal authority”); Beltran v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2650-LL-DEB,
2025 WL 3078837, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025) (finding that § 1252(g) does not strip us
of jurisdiction to hear a petitioner’s claim premised on “a lack of legal authority to subject
[him] to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) during [removal] proceedings”).
Nor does 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) strip this Court of jurisdiction. This statute “bars
review of claims arising from actions or proceedings brought to remove an alien,” that is
“an order of removal, the decision to seek removal, or the process by which removability
will be determined.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1,
Case 3:25-cv-03464-LL-KSC Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
25cv3464-LL-KSC
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
19 (2020) (quotation marks, alterations, and ellipses omitted). It does not bar claims that
are merely “collateral” to the removal process. J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026, 1032
(9th Cir. 2016). Like here, such collaterality includes claims predicated on “a lack of legal
authority to subject [petitioners] to mandatory detention under § 1225[b][2] instead of
detention with a bond hearing under § 1226(a).” Beltran, 2025 WL 3078837, at *3.
B. 	Merits
The Government has acknowledged that: “On July 8, 2025, the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) instituted a notice titled “Interim Guidance Regarding
Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission” (the “Notice”) requiring, in general,
that anyone arrested in the United States and charged with being inadmissible to be
considered an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and not subject to detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a). In Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, --
- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3289861 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025), the district court declared
the Notice unlawful under the Administrative Procedures Act but did not issue a final
judgment. On December 18, 2025, however, the Bautista court entered final judgement.
Bautista, ECF No. 94. Accordingly, Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner is detained
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to an order from this Court directing a bond hearing
be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” ECF No. 5. The Court agrees.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-03464-LL-KSC Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
25cv3464-LL-KSC
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
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. By January 12, 2026, Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an
individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), during
which they shall not deny her bond based on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory-detention
requirement; it does not apply here. The Clerk shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03464-LL-KSC Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4