J.M.G. v. LaRose et al

1
25cv3562-LL-MMP
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
J.M.G., Detainee, Otay Mesa Detention
Facility,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior
Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center,
et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25cv3562-LL-MMP
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[ECF No. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner J.M.G.’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 entered the United States in October 2024 in Texas. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”)
¶ 17. After obtaining a positive determination in his credible fear interview, DHS released
Petitioner on conditional parole into the United States. Id. ¶¶ 18–19. In June 2025, when
Petitioner attended his regularly-scheduled court hearing in his immigration case, DHS
Case 3:25-cv-03562-LL-MMP Document 15 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
25cv3562-LL-MMP
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
orally moved, without notice, to dismiss his case, after which ICE immediately arrested
him. Id. ¶¶ 20–24. Respondents placed Petitioner in expedited removal proceedings under
§ 1225(b)(2) as opposed to § 1226(a). Id. ¶¶ 25–27. 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 him is
wrong. See id. Thus, on December 12, 2025, he petitioned this Court to be reclassified as
an alien eligible for a bond hearing under § 1226(a). See id.
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 him 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
Case 3:25-cv-03562-LL-MMP Document 15 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
25cv3562-LL-MMP
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
will be determined.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1,
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 now acknowledged the following: “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. 12, at 1–2. The Court agrees.
Finally, Respondents request that any bond hearing be held 14 days from the date of
this Order due to the “federal holidays, heavy caseloads, and staffing levels.” ECF No. 12,
at 2 n.1. Meanwhile, Petitioner argues that “immediate release” or a bond hearing “within
five business days” is warranted. ECF No. 14, at 2–3. The Court finds that holding a bond
hearing within one week to be the appropriate relief in this case.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. By January 15, 2026, Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an
Case 3:25-cv-03562-LL-MMP Document 15 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
25cv3562-LL-MMP
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
individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), during
which they shall not deny him bond based on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)’s mandatory-detention
requirement; it does not apply here. Petitioner’s requests for attorney fees and costs is
denied without prejudice. The Clerk shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03562-LL-MMP Document 15 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4