Gonzalez Luengas v. Noem et al

1
26-cv-236-RSH-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
YERICEDT GONZALEZ LUENGAS,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, et al,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-236-RSH-KSC
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
[ECF No. 2]
On January 15, 2026, petitioner Yericedt Gonzalez Luengas filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Pursuant to a
briefing schedule set by the Court, Respondents filed a return. ECF No. 5.
Petitioner is a citizen of Colombia. ECF No. 1-5 at 1. On December 6, 2025, she was
arrested and taken into immigration custody. Id. The same day, she was the subject of an
expedited order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), as an applicant for admission
not in possession of valid entry documents. See ECF No. 5-2 at 1 (expedited order of
removal citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as basis for inadmissibility).
On December 15, 2025, Petitioner participated by telephone, and with an interpreter,
in a credible fear interview with an asylum officer. ECF No. 1-5 at 1. She was found not to
Case 3:26-cv-00236-RSH-KSC Document 7 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-236-RSH-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
have a credible fear of persecution if returned to Colombia. ECF No. 1 at 3. Petitioner
thereafter sought review by an immigration judge. On December 30, 2025, the immigration
judge affirmed the determination of lack of credible fear. Id. Petitioner alleges in her habeas
petition that her telephone interview did not allow her to fully explain her fear. Id. at 7. She
further states that she fears returning to Colombia because of past persecution and the risk
of future harm. ECF No. 1-5 at 2.
The Supreme Court has held that “courts may not review ‘the determination’ that an
alien lacks a credible fear of persecution.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591
U.S. 103, 112 (2020) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii)). In the context of expedited
removal orders under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), federal law prohibits judicial review of “the
‘procedures and policies’ that have been adopted to ‘implement’ the expedited removal
process; the decision to ‘invoke’ that process in a particular case; the ‘application’ of that
process to a particular alien; and the ‘implementation’ and ‘operation’ of any expedited
removal order.” Mendoza-Linares v. Garland, 51 F.4th 1146, 1155 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)). “Congress could scarcely have been more comprehensive in its
articulation of the general prohibition on judicial review of expedited removal orders.” Id.
By statute, judicial review of such orders is limited to determinations whether the petitioner
is an alien, whether the petitioner was ordered removed under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), and
whether the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she has been
granted status as a lawful permanent resident, refugee, or asylee. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2). In
addressing these questions, “the court’s inquiry shall be limited to whether such an order
in fact was issued and whether it relates to the petitioner. There shall be no review of
whether the alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(e)(5).
Petitioner 	here 	challenges 	her 	negative 	credible 	fear 	determination 	and 	the
application of the expedited removal process to her case. Petitioner’s claim falls within the
scope of the statutory prohibition on judicial review of expedited removal orders, and does
not fall within the narrow exception to that prohibition.
Case 3:26-cv-00236-RSH-KSC Document 7 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-236-RSH-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
The Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s claim. Accordingly,
the Petition is DISMISSED. Petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order
[ECF No. 2] is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00236-RSH-KSC Document 7 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3