Vergara Barrera v. LaRose et al

1
3:26-cv-00762-RBM-DDL
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
ROSA VERGARA BARRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior Warden,
Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00762-RBM-DDL
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Rosa Vergara Barrera’s (“Petitioner”) Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) For the
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a Mexican national who entered the United States without inspection in
or about February 2001. (Doc. 1 ¶ 1.) “On April 5, 2020, the Department of Homeland
Security [‘DHS’] issued a Notice to Appear placing Petitioner in removal proceedings
under [Immigration and Nationality Act] § 240.” (Id. ¶ 27.) She “has resided continuously
in the United States for more than two decades, and was arrested by DHS on October 14,
2025, inside an immigration court.” 	(Id. ¶ 1.) 	While detained at Otay Mesa Detention
Center, Petitioner requested a bond hearing, at which the immigration judge concluded that
Case 3:26-cv-00762-RBM-DDL Document 5 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00762-RBM-DDL
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
he lacked jurisdiction under Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).
(Id. ¶ 37.)
On February 6, 2026, Petitioner filed the Petition. 	(Doc. 1.) 	The Court issued a
briefing schedule and Order to Show Cause shortly thereafter. (Doc. 2.) On February 13,
2026, Respondents filed their Response to Petition. (Doc. 3.) That same day, Petitioner
filed her Notice of Concurrence with Respondents’ Concession and Request for Prompt
Bond Hearing Order. (Doc. 4.)
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). “Writs of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues that her detention without a bond hearing violates the Immigration
and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 41–48.)
Respondents concede that Petitioner, as a class member of the Bond Eligible Class certified
in Bautista v. Santacruz,1 is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to a bond
hearing. (Doc. 3 at 2.) Because the Parties agree that Petitioner is detained under § 1226
and entitled to a bond hearing, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
1 See Bautista v. Santacruz, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25,
2025).
Case 3:26-cv-00762-RBM-DDL Document 5 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00762-RBM-DDL
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
IV. 	CONCLUSION2
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Accordingly,
the Court ORDERS:
1. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order. 	At the bond hearing,
Respondents 	shall bear the burden 	of establishing, by 	clear and 	convincing
evidence,3 that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.
2. If the bond hearing is not conducted within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order,
Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody until it is determined that her
detention is warranted under § 1226(a).
3. On or before March 6, 2026, Respondents SHALL FILE a status report indicating
whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 19, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 The Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining grounds for relief.
3 See Sadeqi v. LaRose, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12,
2025) (“Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing, at which
Respondents must justify her continued detention by a showing of clear and convincing
evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.”)
(citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds
by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (explaining that “the substantial liberty
interest at stake” warranted placing the burden on the government to “prove by clear and
convincing evidence that [a noncitizen] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to
justify denial of bond”)).
Case 3:26-cv-00762-RBM-DDL Document 5 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3