Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-1469-JES-BJW
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
VALENTIN MURILLO-ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, SENIOR
WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION
CENTER; KRISTI NOEM,
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD
LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; PATRICK DIVVER,
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN
DIEGO FIELD OFFICE, U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; SIRCE OWEN,
ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR
IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR), U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. PAMELA
BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-1469-JES-BJW
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF No. 1]
Case 3:26-cv-01469-JES-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:26-cv-1469-JES-BJW
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
Before the Court is Petitioner Valentin Murillo-Ortiz’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). ECF No. 1, (“Pet.”). On
March 9, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to show cause, on or before March 13,
2026, as to why the Petition should not be granted. ECF No. 2. Despite the clear filing
deadline set forth in the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Respondents failed to file a timely
Response to the Petition. This prompted Petitioner to file a Notice, on March 15, 2026,
which advised the Court that, to date, Respondents had failed to respond to the Petition.
ECF No. 3. On March 16, 2026—three days after the filing deadline—Respondents filed a
Notice, which expressed their non-opposition to the Petition. ECF No. 4. Thereafter, the
Court took the matter under submission. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS
the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a Mexican national who entered the United States without inspection
on or about March 9, 2022. Pet. ¶ 1. On November 6, 2025, Petitioner was arrested in San
Marcos, California, and is currently detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. On
March 6, 2026, Petitioner was provided a bond hearing, during which the immigration
court found that it lacked jurisdiction, due to the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision
in Matter of Yajure-Hurtado. Id. ¶ 45; 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). Petitioner alleges that
his continued detention violates the INA and the Due Process Clause, and requests that the
Court either orders his immediate release, or, alternatively, a constitutionally adequate
bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. Pet. ¶¶ 46-54.
II. 	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) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2).
“The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
custody, and . . . 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 to be in custody in violation of the
Case 3:26-cv-01469-JES-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:26-cv-1469-JES-BJW
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
Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas
corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in
that context that its protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301
(2001). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within the purview
of a district court’s habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see
also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003).
III. 	DISCUSSION
The issues raised in this Petition are identical to those raised in the Court’s recent
decision in Velazquez-Beltran v. Noem. No. 3:26-CV-959-JES-MSB, 2026 WL 524056
(S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2026). The Court, therefore, elects to follow the reasoning it stated in
Velazquez-Beltran and incorporates it by reference. Id.
A. 	Jurisdiction
Although Respondents do not challenge jurisdiction, the Court addresses this issue,
sua sponte. Based on the facts of this Petition, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § (“Section”)
1252's jurisdiction stripping provisions do not bar it from considering Petitioner's habeas
Petition. See Martinez Lopez v. Noem et al., No: 25-cv-2717-JES-AHG, 2025 WL
3030457, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025). Further, the prudential administrative
exhaustion requirement for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claims is excused. Thus, the Court finds that
it has jurisdiction to hear the Petition.
B. 	Petitioner is Entitled to a Bond Hearing Under Section 1226(a)
The Court finds that Section 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention. This is because
when he entered the United States, he did so without inspection well over two years ago,
and was apprehended by Respondents, not at the border, but within the interior of the
country. Pet. ¶ 1; see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). These facts, paired with Respondents’ application
of Section 1225(b) to Petitioner’s detention, which resulted in the immigration court
lacking bond jurisdiction, support the Court’s finding that Petitioner is a Maldonado
Bautista Bond Class Member. Pet. ¶¶ 1, 45, 48; see Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No.
//
Case 3:26-cv-01469-JES-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:26-cv-1469-JES-BJW
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
5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3713982, at * 7 (C.D. Cal. Dec.
18, 2025).
In its Notice, the Government indicates that it does not oppose the Court granting
Petitioner a bond hearing. ECF No. 4. However, either of the two grounds discussed above
entitles Petitioner to a bond hearing under Section 1226(a). Thus, the Court finds that
Respondents’ continued detention of Petitioner, without the provision of a bond hearing,
violates his due process rights. Pet. ¶¶ 52-54. Accordingly, the Court holds that Petitioner
is entitled to, and will order Respondents to provide him with, a bond hearing.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition as follows:
(1) 	The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond
determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days of this
Order. At the hearing, Respondents may not deny Petitioner bond on the
basis that he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2); and
(2) 	Respondents are ORDERED to File a Notice of Compliance within five
days of providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing,
including apprising the Court of the results of the hearing; and
(3) 	The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this suit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01469-JES-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4