Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-1439-CAB-SBC
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
MIGALES RAMEAU,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-1439-CAB-SBC
ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
Before the Court is Petitioner Migales Rameau’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] Petitioner claims that he has been
detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Otay Mesa Detention Center since
February 26, 2026 in violation of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure
Act. [Id. at 11–14.] For the reasons discussed below, the Court ORDERS Respondents to
immediately release Petitioner from custody under the same conditions which existed
immediately prior to his February 26, 2026 detention.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a Haitian national who entered the United States on June 17, 2023 at the
San Ysidro Port of Entry after securing an inspection appointment through CBP One. [Id.
at 5.] The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) exercised its discretionary authority
and paroled Petitioner into the United States. 	[Id.] 	DHS issued Petitioner a Form I-94
Case 3:26-cv-01439-CAB-SBC Document 6 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:26-cv-1439-CAB-SBC
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
documenting parole valid through June 16, 2025. 	[Id.] 	Petitioner was detained after
approaching the entrance of Camp Pendleton Marine Base to drop a rideshare passenger
off on February 26, 2026. [Id. at 6.] Petitioner has no criminal history. He has a pending
TPS application and asylum claim. [Petition at 6.]
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of a petitioner’s custody and seeks
to secure release from that illegal custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may
grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” The petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-BJC-
BJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Respondents’ return to the Petition merely states they are not opposed “to a bond
hearing 	for 	Petitioner 	in 	this 	matter, 	subject 	to 	supervision 	during 	his 	removal
proceedings.” [Doc. No. 4.] They do not contest any of Petitioners’ asserted facts and fail
to address Petitioner’s argument that he is entitled to immediate release, rather than simply
a bond hearing. 	Petitioner claims a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, which was violated when he was detained without individualized
consideration of his circumstances and an opportunity to contest his detention.
In light of Petitioners’ unrefuted facts and legal claims, and Respondents’ non
sequitur response, the Court GRANTS a writ of habeas corpus for Petitioner based on the
reasoning the Court has articulated in similar cases. E.g., Tokhi v. LaRose, et al., Case No.
3:26-cv-0803-CAB-VET (S.D. Cal. Feb 19, 2026). The Court ORDERS Respondents to
immediately release Petitioner. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01439-CAB-SBC Document 6 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2