Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

- 1 - 26cv1610
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
BAUDILIO CALMO-PABLO,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-cv-01610-BAS-DDL
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1)
Petitioner Baudilio Calmo-Pablo filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he was improperly detained after he had been released on
bond for seven years. (ECF No. 1.) The Government filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to
Petitioner’s request to be released on bond. 	(ECF No. 4.) 	For the reasons stated below,
the Court GRANTS the Petition and orders that Petitioner be released on the same terms
and conditions as he was previously released.
I. 	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). 	“The traditional function of the
writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 	Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484
Case 3:26-cv-01610-BAS-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

- 2 - 26cv1610
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
(1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or
she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It
applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678,
687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he
has standing to pursue this Petition.
II. 	STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner, a Guatemalan of indigenous Maya Mam descent, entered the United
States on October 3, 2018, seeking asylum. 	(ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 3, 10.) 	The Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) released Petitioner on bond on January 8, 2019. (Id. ¶ 11.)
Petitioner has complied with all the conditions of release over the past seven years. (Id.)
On July 24, 2025, DHS re-detained Petitioner without notice or an opportunity to be heard
and without any changed circumstances with respect to his flight risk or danger to the
community. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 29–30.) Petitioner seeks immediate release or a bond hearing.
III. 	ANALYSIS
The Government filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Petitioner’s release on bond.
(ECF No. 4.) And this Court agrees that Petitioner’s re-detention, without notice or an
opportunity 	to 	be 	heard 	and 	without 	noticeably 	changed 	circumstances, 	violates
Petitioner’s due process rights.
Individuals released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a
liberty interest in continued liberty. 	See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482
(1972) (parolees); Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v.
Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). 	Thus, this Court agrees with those
courts that have held:
[O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from
rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather,
the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed
circumstances—namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or
has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. And if
the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his
rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge.
Case 3:26-cv-01610-BAS-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

- 3 - 26cv1610
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
Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176–77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet
v. Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026)
(“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the
government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody
creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be
revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting
Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))).
Because DHS released Petitioner upon finding he was not a flight risk or a danger
to 	the community 	in 	January 	2019, and 	because there is 	no 	evidence that 	those
circumstances have changed, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same
conditions as he was initially released. 	If DHS believes circumstances have changed, it
must provide notice of these changed circumstances to Petitioner and provide Petitioner an
opportunity to be heard promptly before an Immigration Judge. 	Hence, the Court
GRANTS the Petition.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ:
The Court ORDERS that Petitioner Baudilio Calmo-Pablo (A#215-542-628)
be released on the same terms and conditions as he was previously released in
January 2019.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 24, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-01610-BAS-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3