Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-01512-RBM-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
YOLANDA ARIAS TORRES,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, in his official
capacity as Warden of Otay Mesa Detention
Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01512-RBM-BJW
ORDER 	GRANTING 	PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Yolanda Arias Torres’s (“Petitioner”) Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the
lawfulness of her detention by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”). (Doc. 1.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a Mexican national who entered the United States in 2007 without being
admitted or paroled. (Doc. 1 ¶ 20.) She was employed full-time as a cook at a restaurant
in Escondido, California and has a United States citizen son. 	(Id. ¶ 21.) 	ICE visited
Petitioner at her home in May 2025 regarding Petitioner’s niece who had entered the United
States as an unaccompanied minor. (Id. ¶ 22.) During that visit, Petitioner acknowledged
that she did not have legal status. (Id.)
Case 3:26-cv-01512-RBM-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:26-cv-01512-RBM-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
Petitioner was then placed in removal proceedings. (Id. ¶ 23.) On February 4, 2026,
an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed. (Id.) Petitioner’s appeal of that decision
is pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals. 	(Id.) 	On March 2, 2026, ICE
detained Petitioner during a regular check-in. 	(Id.) 	Petitioner has not received a bond
hearing. (See id. ¶¶ 46–55.)
On March 10, 2026, Petitioner filed her Petition. (Doc. 1.) The next day, the Court
set a briefing schedule. (Doc. 2.) On March 18, 2026, Respondents filed their Return to
Habeas Petition and Notice of Non-Opposition (“Response”). 	(Doc. 4.) 	Petitioner was
authorized to file a reply on or before March 25, 2026, but did not file one.
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 continued detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the
Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 1
¶¶ 46–55.) 	Respondents do not substantively respond to any of Petitioner’s arguments,
indicating only that they do not oppose Petitioner receiving a bond hearing. (Doc. 4 at 1.)
The Court has granted petitions filed by similarly-situated petitioners. 	See, e.g.,
Silvestre-Mendoza v. Noem, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03206-RBM-DDL, 2025 WL 3512410, at
*1–2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025). 	In that decision, the Court found that “‘a proper
understanding of the relevant statutes, in light of their plain text, overall structure, and . . .
Case 3:26-cv-01512-RBM-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:26-cv-01512-RBM-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
case law interpreting them, compels the conclusion that § 1225’s provisions for mandatory
detention of noncitizens seeking admission [do] not apply to someone like [the petitioner],’
who has been residing in the United States” for many years. 	Id. at *1 (quoting Lopez
Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2025)). The Court incorporates its
reasoning in Silvestre-Mendoza, and makes the same findings, here.
There is no dispute that Petitioner was detained on March 10, 2026, after having
resided in the United States for nearly 20 years. 	(Doc. 1 ¶¶ 20, 23.) 	Therefore, the
discretionary detention procedures of § 1226 govern Petitioner’s detention, and the Petition
must be granted. The Court also finds that immediate release, rather than a bond hearing,
is the appropriate remedy. See E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1324 (W.D.
Wash. 2025) (“Although the Government notes that Petitioner may request a bond hearing
while detained, such a post-deprivation hearing cannot serve as an adequate procedural
safeguard because it is after the fact and cannot prevent an erroneous deprivation of
liberty.”); Jorge M.F. v. Jennings, 534 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“if
Petitioner is detained, he will already have suffered the injury he is now seeking to avoid”);
Domingo v. Kaiser, Case No. 25-cv-05893 (RFL), 2025 WL 1940179, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
July 14, 2025) (“Even if Petitioner[] received a prompt post-detention bond hearing under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was released at that point, he will have already suffered the harm
that is the subject of his motion; that is, his potentially erroneous detention.”).
IV. 	CONCLUSION1
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Accordingly:
1. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody.
2. The Court ORDERS, prior to any re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner shall
receive a hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) to
1 In light of the disposition herein, the Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining
grounds for relief.
Case 3:26-cv-01512-RBM-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:26-cv-01512-RBM-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
determine whether detention is warranted. 	Respondents shall bear the burden of
establishing, by clear and convincing evidence,2 that Petitioner poses a danger to the
community or a risk of flight.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 26, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 See Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1090, 1095 (S.D. Cal. 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”).
3 This relief has been granted in similar matters. See E.A. T.-B, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 1324;
Duong v. Kaiser, 800 F. Supp. 3d 1030, 1043–44 (N.D. Cal. 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801
F. Supp. 3d 1104, 1119–20 (E.D. Cal. 2025).
Case 3:26-cv-01512-RBM-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4