Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

26-cv-656
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
ALI ANTONIO PEREZ OROPEZA,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden of
Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00656-BTM-DEB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF NO. 1]
Pending before the Court is Ali Antonio Perez Oropeza’s amended petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	For the reasons stated below, the Court
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the petition and orders the Respondents to
provide him with an individualized bond hearing before a fair, neutral, and open-minded
immigration judge.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Perez arrived at the U.S. border on June 17, 2023. (ECF No. 7-1, Ex. A (“Decl.”),
¶ 2.) 	Nearly two years later on May 29, 2025, Perez attended a hearing in immigration
court. (Id. ¶ 3.) After Perez left the courtroom, he was arrested by U.S. Immigration and
Case 3:26-cv-00656-BTM-DEB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
26-cv-656
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
Customs Enforcement agents. 	(Id.) 	The agents neither informed Perez why he was
arrested nor provided him an opportunity to rebut his arrest. (Id.)
By September 2, 2025, Perez had applied for asylum. 	(ECF No. 7-2, Ex. B.) 	On
January 28, 2026, the Respondents moved the immigration court to pretermit Perez’s
asylum application and remove him to Ecuador. (ECF No. 7-3, Ex. C (“DHS Mot.”).) On
February 10, 2026, the immigration court granted the motion and ordered Perez removed
to Ecuador. Perez has since appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(Decl., ¶ 6.)
Perez has been in custody for about nine months and has not received a bond hearing.
(See id. ¶ 3, 7.) 	He remains detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center. 	(See id. ¶ 8.) 	He
filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus on February 2, 2026, and an amended petition
on February 23, 2026. (ECF No. 1; ECF No. 7 (“Am. Pet.”).)
II. 	DISCUSSION
Perez makes two claims. 	First, he argues that the Respondents violated the
Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment when they improperly revoked his parole. (Am. Pet., 4–
10.) 	Second, he argues that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the
Due Process Clause. (Id. at 10–15.) Perez requests that the Court grant immediate release
for the first claim or a bond hearing for the second claim. The Court addresses each claim
in turn.
A. 	Parole
Applicants for admission into the United States may be paroled into the country “for
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” 	8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).
Under the governing regulation, humanitarian parole may be revoked “only if the purpose
of parole is accomplished, or humanitarian reasons and the public benefit no longer warrant
parole.” 	Arias v. LaRose, 2025 WL 3295385, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025) (citing 8
C.F.R. 	§ 212.5(e)). 	Perez 	contends 	that 	the 	Respondents 	improperly 	revoked 	his
humanitarian parole by not finding that the purpose of his parole was accomplished and
Case 3:26-cv-00656-BTM-DEB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
26-cv-656
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
not providing reasons specific to Perez for terminating his parole. 	Furthermore, he
contends this parole revocation deprived him of liberty without due process of law.
In federal habeas proceedings, “it is the petitioner who bears the burden of proving
his case.” Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 969 n.16 (9th Cir. 2004). To argue that his
parole was improperly revoked, Perez must establish that he received parole. 	Perez’s
amended petition states that
he came to the U.S. border fleeing persecution in Venezuela and turned
himself in to the border agents to apply for asylum. [Decl.] ¶ 2. He was held
for three days and then released into the United States to apply for asylum. Id.
As he understands it, he received parole. Id.
(Am. Pet., 2.) 	The amended petition cites Perez’s declaration. 	Yet Perez’s declaration
simply states, “2. On June 17, 2023, I came to the United States border to apply for
asylum.” 	(Decl. ¶ 2.) 	The following paragraph begins, “3. On May 29, 2025, I went to
immigration court for a hearing.” (Id. ¶ 3.) Perez provides no evidence that he presented
himself for inspection with border agents, was held for three days, and then was paroled
into the country. 	Rather, the record suggests that he “entered the United States without
inspection.” 	(DHS Mot., 2.) 	The Respondents’ motion in immigration court stated that
they charged Perez as removable because he was a noncitizen1 “present in the United States
without being admitted or paroled, or who arrive[d] in the United States at any time or
place other than as designated.” (See id.) 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (emphasis added).
Perez later “conceded removability.” (DHS Mot., 2.)
Perez has not demonstrated that he received parole. 	Therefore, he cannot bring a
revocation of parole claim. The Court denies without prejudice the Petitioner’s first claim
and his request for immediate release without a bond hearing.
//
//
//
1 This order uses the term “noncitizen” as equivalent to the statutory term “alien.” 	8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(3); see Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. 222, 226 n.2 (2020).
Case 3:26-cv-00656-BTM-DEB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
26-cv-656
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
B. 	Bond Hearing
The Respondents concede Perez’s second claim. They “acknowledge that Petitioner
is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to an order from this Court directing a
bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (ECF No. 8 (“Return”), at 2.)
They stated this, however, in light of the class action Maldonado Bautista v.
Santacruz, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), judgment entered sub nom.
Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). 	Four days
after the Respondents filed their brief, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit temporarily stayed the class action’s judgment. 	See Maldonado Bautista v. U.S.
Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). Although the Respondents
“reserve[d] the right to supplement this response in the event of a stay of enforcement of
the Bautista final judgment [or] appellate relief,” they have not supplemented their
response. (Return, 2.)
Proceeding on the merits, the Court finds that Perez is entitled to a bond hearing.
Perez was arrested in the interior of the country after residing here for almost two years.
“The overwhelming majority of courts . . . have agreed that Section 1226(a), rather than
the mandatory detention provision of Section 1225(b)(2)(A), applies to a noncitizen in
Petitioner’s position who has resided in the United States for years.” 	Lucas-Miguel v.
LaRose, 2025 WL 3251580, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025). 	The Court adopts the
reasoning of Lucas-Miguel and its previous decision, Amaya v. Noem, 2025 WL 3182998
(S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025), and rules likewise. Perez is entitled to the writ of habeas corpus
because he is “not an applicant for admission” and “may not be denied a bond hearing
based on” the argument that he is detained under Section 1225. Amaya, 2025 WL 3182998,
at *2.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Petitioner’s second claim and orders a bond
hearing under Section 1226(a). 	The individualized bond hearing must be before a fair,
neutral, and open-minded immigration judge who is ordered to determine whether the
Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and what bond conditions, if any,
Case 3:26-cv-00656-BTM-DEB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
26-cv-656
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
would be appropriate to ensure the Petitioner’s appearance. 	If the immigration judge
denies bond, the judge must make specific findings as to why Perez is a flight risk or a
danger to the community.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED IN
PART on the second claim. The Respondents are ordered to grant Perez an individualized
bond hearing before a fair, neutral, and open-minded immigration judge in accordance with
the requirements ordered above. The hearing must be held no later than April 2, 2026. The
first claim and the remedy of release without a bond hearing is DENIED without prejudice.
The parties shall file a joint statement as to compliance with this writ and order and the
result of the bond hearing by 5 p.m. on April 3, 2026.
The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the writ.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2026
___________________________
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00656-BTM-DEB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5