Ramos Gregorio v. Larose et al

1
25cv3741-LL-MMP
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
HECTOR ANIVAL RAMOS
GREGORIO,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior
Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center,
et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25cv3741-LL-MMP
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[ECF No. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Hector Anival Ramos Gregorio’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The matter is fully briefed,
and the Court deems it suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ORDERS Petitioner’s release from custody on the
conditions previously ordered by the Immigration Judge.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a Guatemalan national who entered the United States without inspection
in March 2019. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”) ¶ 10. He has family here and a pending asylum
application to remain here as well. Id. ¶ 50. On August 8, 2025, ICE detained Petitioner.
Case 3:25-cv-03741-LL-MMP Document 6 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
25cv3741-LL-MMP
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
Id. ¶ 54. Shortly thereafter, an Immigration Judge conducted a custody redetermination
hearing and ruled that Petitioner did not pose a danger to the community but did present a
flight risk, which could be mitigated with bond and Alternatives to Detention. See ECF No.
1-3. The IJ granted Petitioner’s release with a $10,000 bond. Id. Subsequently, however,
the IJ determined that he lacked jurisdiction to grant Petitioner’s bond, in light of DHS
charging Petitioner under § 1225(b)(2) as opposed to § 1226(a). See ECF No. 4, at 1–2.
The former mandating detention, the latter permitting release on bond when it is
determined that the alien is not a danger to others or a flight risk and the like. Petitioner
argues that DHS’s classification and detention of him is wrong. See generally Pet.
Therefore, on December 23, 2025, he petitioned this Court to be released on the conditions
the IJ previously determined. See id.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Jurisdiction
Courts have long had jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus to petitioners held
in custody “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C § 2241(c)(3). In doing so, we carry out the “historic purpose of the writ,” namely
“to relieve detention by executive authorities without judicial trial.” Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001). Had Petitioner sought to challenge the Government’s decision
to execute any removal order, it would bar this Court’s review. See Arce v. United States,
899 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 2018) (applying 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)’s “jurisdiction-stripping
power to actions challenging the Attorney General’s discretionary decisions to initiate
proceedings, adjudicate cases, and execute removal orders”). But Petitioner only contests
the Government’s purported legal authority to subject him to mandatory detention under
§ 1225(b)(2), so the Court has jurisdiction to weigh in. See Ibarra-Perez v. United States,
154 F.4th 989, 998 (9th Cir. 2025) (noting that courts often have “jurisdiction” to hear a
claim “premised on a lack of legal authority”); Beltran v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2650-LL-DEB,
2025 WL 3078837, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025) (finding that § 1252(g) does not strip us
of jurisdiction to hear a petitioner’s claim premised on “a lack of legal authority to subject
Case 3:25-cv-03741-LL-MMP Document 6 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
25cv3741-LL-MMP
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
[him] to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) during [removal] proceedings”).
Nor does 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) strip this Court of jurisdiction. This statute “bars
review of claims arising from actions or proceedings brought to remove an alien,” that is
“an order of removal, the decision to seek removal, or the process by which removability
will be determined.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1,
19 (2020) (quotation marks, alterations, and ellipses omitted). It does not bar claims that
are merely “collateral” to the removal process. J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026, 1032
(9th Cir. 2016). Like here, such collaterality includes claims predicated on “a lack of legal
authority to subject [petitioners] to mandatory detention under § 1225[b][2] instead of
detention with a bond hearing under § 1226(a).” Beltran, 2025 WL 3078837, at *3.
B. 	Merits
The Government has now acknowledged the following: “On July 8, 2025, the
Department of Homeland Security (‘DHS’) instituted a notice titled ‘Interim Guidance
Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission’ (the ‘Notice’) requiring, in
general, that anyone arrested in the United States and charged with being inadmissible be
considered an ‘applicant for admission’ under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 27 1225(b)(2)(A) and not subject to detention under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). 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 Notice unlawful under the Administrative Procedures Act but did not issue a final
judgment. On December 18, 2025, however, the Bautista court entered final judgment.
Bautista, ECF No. 94. Respondents here acknowledge that Petitioner is covered by the
Baustista judgment declaring the Notice unlawful. He is thus detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a).” ECF No. 4, at 1–2.
Additionally, the Government states that: “On August 15, 2025, the Immigration
Judge conducted a custody redetermination hearing and ruled that Petitioner did not pose
a danger to the community but did present a flight risk, which could be mitigated with bond
and Alternatives to Detention. See Bond Memorandum of the Immigration Judge dated
Case 3:25-cv-03741-LL-MMP Document 6 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
25cv3741-LL-MMP
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
September 9, 2025 at ECF No. 1-3. The IJ granted [Petitioner’s] release with a $10,000
bond. Id. Subsequently, under the policy the Bautista court has now held was unlawful, the
IJ determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant bond to Petitioner.” Id. at 2 n.1.
Therefore, the Government concludes that Petitioner “is entitled to an order from
this Court that directs the agency to implement the release conditions previously ordered
by the Immigration Judge or to hold a new bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).”
Id. at 2. The Court agrees.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. By January 16, 2026, Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody
with the release conditions previously ordered by the Immigration Judge. ECF No. 1-3
(“Bond Memorandum of the IJ”). Petitioner’s requests for attorney fees and costs is denied
without prejudice. The Clerk shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03741-LL-MMP Document 6 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4