Cristian v. Larose et al

1
3:25-cv-3627-CAB-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
CRISTIAN SUAREZ ARTUNDUAGA,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3627-CAB-KSC
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. No. 1]
Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 filed by Petitioner Cristian Suarez Artunduaga. 	(“Petitioner”). 	[Doc. No. 1
(“Petition”).] 	Petitioner 	claims 	that 	he 	is 	detained 	by 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement 	(“ICE”) 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	Fourth 	and 	Fifth 	Amendments 	and 	the
Administrative Procedure Act. 	[Id. at 18–26.] 	He seeks immediate release from ICE
detention, or at minimum, an individualized bond hearing. [Id. at 27.] For the following
reasons, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the Petition and ORDERS Respondents to
provide a bond hearing.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia. [Id. at 2.] He presented on April 14, 2024 at the
Laredo, Texas Port of Entry with a scheduled Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) One
appointment. [Id.] Petitioner requested asylum and received a grant of humanitarian parole
Case 3:25-cv-03627-CAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-3627-CAB-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
until April 13, 2025 under the Class of Admission “DT” pending a hearing on the merits
of his asylum application. 	[Id.] 1 Petitioner later requested, and on August 14, 2024, the
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted, a dismissal of his pending removal proceedings in light
of his parole status. [Petition at 3.]
On June 29, 2025, Petitioner turned into the main gate of a U.S. military facility and
was detained by military police for not having a driver’s license while operating a motor
vehicle. [Id. at 8; Doc. No. 5 at 2–3.] The military contacted ICE, who detained Petitioner.
[Doc. No. 5 at 3.] Petitioner was then issued a new Notice to Appear and placed in new
removal proceedings. [Id.]
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
The arguments with regards to jurisdiction being barred under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 are
identical to those recently addressed by the undersigned in Chavez v. Noem, 801 F. Supp.
3d 1133, 1137–38 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2025). The Court adopts its reasoning on those issues
and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied of its jurisdiction and
proceeds to the merits.
Respondents counter that Petitioner had no legal status on June 29, 2025 because his
parole expired more than two months prior. [Doc. No. 5 at 7–8.] Therefore, according to
1 Neither Petitioner nor Respondents have included the documentation of Petitioner’s humanitarian
parole demonstrating the expiration date. However, the Court accepts as true the fact that Petitioner’s
parole was expired at the time of his detainment.
Case 3:25-cv-03627-CAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-3627-CAB-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
Respondents, Petitioner is an applicant for admission pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
[Id.] But as Respondents have represented in other cases before this Court that involved
petitioners purportedly detained under § 1225(b)(2):
[I]n November 2025, 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 “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention
Authority for Applicants for Admission” unlawful under the Administrative
Procedures Act. On December 18, 2025, the Bautista court entered final
judgement. Bautista, [Doc.] No. 94. Accordingly, Respondents acknowledge
that, in accordance with Bautista, [p]etitioner [who Respondents alleged was
detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A)] 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).
Rahul Sharma v. Jeremy Casey, et al., No. 3:26-cv-00050-CAB-SBC, Doc. No. 5 at 3 (S.D.
Cal. January 15, 2026). Here, too, Respondents allege that Petitioner is lawfully detained
under § 1225(b)(2) as an “applicant for admission” who is “seeking admission [and] is not
clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” [Doc. No. 5 at 8–9.]
The Court thus ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond
hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its associated
regulations within fourteen days of the date of this order. 	Respondents are further
ORDERED to update this Court on the status of Petitioner’s bond hearing within two
business days of its completion.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03627-CAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3