Lugo Salvador v. Larose et al

- 1 - 26cv0553
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
SANDRA LUGO SALVADOR,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-00553-BAS-MMP
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1)
Petitioner Sandra Lugo Salvador filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	(ECF No. 1.) 	She argues: (1) her re-detention after being paroled
into the country without notice or an opportunity to be heard violates her Fifth Amendment
due process rights; (2) the re-detention also violates the Administrative Procedure Act
(“APA”) because it was “arbitrary and capricious” under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); and (3) she
is being mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) when she should be classified
under § 1226(a). 	(ECF No. 1.) 	Petitioner seeks an order releasing her on the same
conditions as she was previously released on parole. (Id.)
Case 3:26-cv-00553-BAS-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

- 2 - 26cv0553
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
Respondents filed a Return. (ECF No. 4.) In the Return, 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 § 1226(a).” Respondents do not address
the argument that Petitioner’s re-detention violates the APA and her due process rights.
(Id.)
Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 5.) In the Traverse, Petitioner disputes that a
bond hearing is necessary under § 1226(a) and requests that she be ordered released under
the same terms and conditions as she was previously released.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
States.” 	Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). 	“The traditional function of the
writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 	Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484
(1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or
she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
The writ is available to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody, and since she is seeking release
from custody, she has standing to pursue this Petition.
II. 	STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner is a Mexican asylum seeker. (Pet. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) On January 25, 2020,
the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) released her on humanitarian parole,
finding she was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. 	(Id.) 	She has been
living in the United States since then. (Id.) She has complied with all conditions of release,
attended all court hearings, and otherwise obeyed all laws of the United States. (Id. ¶ 13.)
She is now married to a United States citizen and has an 11-month-old United States citizen
daughter. (Id. ¶ 8.)
On January 21, 2026, while attending an immigration hearing, she was re-detained
without notice or an opportunity to be heard. 	(Id. ¶ 2.) 	She is being held without bond
Case 3:26-cv-00553-BAS-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

- 3 - 26cv0553
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
because Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has determined that she is subject
to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
III. 	ANALYSIS
A. 	Violation of the APA
Under the APA, a reviewing court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action
. . . found to be— [] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law” or “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. §
706(2)(A), (D). 	“[A]n agency’s action can only survive arbitrary or capricious review
where it has articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational
connection between the facts found and the choice made.” 	Y-Z-L-H v. Bostock, 792 F.
Supp. 3d 1123, 1144 (D. Or. 2025) (citing Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Petrick, 68 F.4th
475, 493 (9th Cir. 2023)). Although the court “is not to substitute its judgment for that of
the agency,” Persian Broad. Serv. Glob., Inc. v. Walsh, 75 F.4th 1108, 1111–12 (9th Cir.
2023), and the scope of the review is narrow, “[a] court ‘may not infer an agency’s
reasoning from mere silence,’” Y-Z-L-H, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1144 (quoting Arlington v.
Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008)).
Section 1182 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security, in her discretion, to
temporarily parole a noncitizen into the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). “[W]hen
the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security,
have been served, the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which
he was paroled.” Id.
In this case, the purpose of Petitioner’s parole into the United States was to allow
her to pursue her asylum claim. This purpose has not yet been served. Nor did either the
Secretary or Respondents attempt to claim otherwise. Instead, there is deafening silence
as to the reason for revoking Petitioner’s parole. The fact that Respondents in their Return
make no attempt to justify the decision or argue that the APA was not violated could be
construed as a concession that the parole revocation had no justification. 	See Ramirez v.
Ghilotti Bros. Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1210 n.7 (N.D. Cal 2013) (finding an argument
Case 3:26-cv-00553-BAS-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

- 4 - 26cv0553
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
was conceded where defendant failed to address it in its opposition); Sportcare of Am.,
P.C. v. Multiplan, Inc., No. 2:10-4414, 2011 WL 589955, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2011) (“In
most circumstances, failure to respond in an opposition brief to an argument put forward
in an opening brief constitutes waiver or abandonment in regard to the uncontested issue.”).
There is no attempt to address Petitioner’s claim that the decision was arbitrary and
capricious. 	Instead, Respondents acknowledge Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) and is entitled to an order directing that she receive a bond hearing pursuant to
§ 1226(a) without addressing the fact that her parole into the United States was abruptly
withdrawn without explanation. Without further explanation, the Court finds the decision
to revoke Petitioner’s parole was “arbitrary and capricious.”
In addition, the decision to revoke Petitioner’s parole was made “without observance
of procedure required by law.” 	5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D). 	Parole may be terminated “upon
accomplishment of the purpose for which parole was authorized or when in the opinion [of
designated] officials . . . neither humanitarian reasons nor public benefit warrants the
continued presence of the alien in the United States,” but it requires written notice to the
individual who received parole. 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2). Since Petitioner received no such
written notice, nor in fact any notice whatsoever, the Court similarly finds the revocation
violates the APA.
B. 	Due Process and Improper Classification Under § 1225(b)(2)
In light of the Court’s finding that Respondents violated the APA when they revoked
Petitioner’s parole into the country before the purpose of the parole had been served and
without any explanation, the Court finds the other grounds for release to be moot.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner Sandra Lugo Salvador’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. (ECF No. 1.) The Court issues the following writ:
The Court 	ORDERS 	Respondents to immediately release Sandra Lugo
Salvador (A#216-068-868) on the same terms and conditions that she was
released on parole in 2020. The Court further orders that Respondents return
to Petitioner all her personal property and documents upon her release.
Case 3:26-cv-00553-BAS-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

- 5 - 26cv0553
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
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 11, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-00553-BAS-MMP Document 6 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5