Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB
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
HASMIK KARAPETYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF OTAY MESA
DETENTION CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[Doc. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Hasmik Karapetyan’s (“Petitioner”) Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). 	(Doc. 1.) 	For the
reasons set forth below, the Petition is DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	Factual Background
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Armenia, entered the United States on or around
January 15, 2025. 	(Doc. 3 at 1.) 	Petitioner was detained and placed into United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) custody where she remains as of today.
(Doc. 4 at 2.) 	On February 11, 2025, Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear charging
her as removable under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) as an immigrant not in possession of a valid entry document. (Doc. 3-2 at 1, 4.)
Case 3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 6

2
3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB
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
On August 4, 2025, an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner removed to
Armenia. (Doc. 1 at 10–13; Doc. 3-1 at 1–4.) The IJ also denied Petitioner’s application
for asylum but granted withholding of removal. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Petitioner and the United
States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) both waived appeal. (Doc. 3-1 at 4.)
B. 	Procedural Background
On December 15, 2025, Petitioner filed her first habeas petition challenging her
continued detention as unconstitutionally prolonged and seeking her release from ICE
custody. 	Karapetyan v. LaRose, Case No. 3:25-cv-03640-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15,
2025), ECF No. 1. The Honorable Janis L. Sammartino denied Petitioner’s first petition,
finding that Petitioner’s detention had not been unreasonably prolonged and that the Court
lacked jurisdiction over her deliberate indifference to medical needs claim. 	Id., ECF No.
10 at 5, 7.
On February 4, 2026, Petitioner commenced a new action by filing the instant
Petition. 	(Doc. 1.) 	Pursuant to this Court’s Order on February 19, 2026 (see Doc. 2),
Respondents filed a Return to the Habeas Petition (“Response”) on February 26, 2026.
(Doc. 3.) On March 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a Traverse (“Reply”). (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 challenges her continued detention as prolonged in violation of the Fifth
Case 3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 6

3
3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB
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
Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis,
553 U.S. 678 (2001), 28 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), and the Administrative Procedure Act
(“APA”). (Doc. 1 at 6.) Respondents argue that Petitioner “is an arriving [noncitizen] with
an 	order 	of 	removal” 	and 	her 	“detention 	is 	[therefore] 	mandated 	by 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1)(B).” (Doc. 3 at 1, 5–7.)1
As 	the 	statutory 	provision 	governing 	Petitioner’s 	detention 	determines 	what
procedures Respondents must follow, the Court will address this issue first.
A. 	Detention Authority
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), noncitizens are subject to mandatory detention.
Section 1225 applies to noncitizens who are “applicants for admission.” An applicant for
admission is a noncitizen “who ‘arrives in the United States,’ or ‘is present’ in this country
but ‘has not been admitted.’” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 287 (2018) (quoting 8
U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1)). “Once [a noncitizen] has a final removal order that is not subject to
a judicial stay, detention authority shifts to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a).” 	Rodriguez Diaz v.
Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1197 (9th Cir. 2022). 	Section 1231(a) “governs the detention,
release, and removal of individuals ‘ordered removed.’” 	Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez,
596 U.S. 573, 578 (2022). After the entry of a final removal order, a noncitizen is subject
to mandatory detention for 90 days, known as the “removal period.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1).
As 	relevant 	here, 	the 	removal 	period 	begins 	when 	the 	removal 	order 	becomes
1 Respondents also argue this Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) and
§ 1252(b)(9). (Doc. 3 at 2–5.) However, Petitioner does not challenge her removal order,
the decision to commence removal proceedings, or any act to execute a removal order.
Rather, Petitioner “challenges her deprivation of liberty and prolonged detention, not the
adequacy of the procedures . . . governing her legal admission into the United States.”
(Doc. 7 at 6.) 	The Court therefore finds it has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s prolonged
detention claims under Zadvydas. See Rios v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 808 F. Supp.
3d 1145, 1149 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (“As other courts in this district have found in similar
matters, the Court has jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s claims that his detention is unlawful
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”); Yousefi v. Larose, No. 3:26-CV-00272-RBM-VET, 2026 WL
407957, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2026).
Case 3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 6

4
3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB
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
administratively final. 	See id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i). Section 1231(a)(6) “authorizes further
detention if the Government fails to remove the [noncitizen] during those 90 days.”
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682. 	The statute, however, is limited to “a period reasonably
necessary to bring about [the noncitizen’s] removal from the United States” and “does not
permit indefinite detention.” Id. at 689.
In this case, an IJ ordered Petitioner removed and granted withholding of removal
on August 4, 2025. (Doc. 1 at 12–13.) Both parties waived their right to appeal. (Id. at
13.) As such, Petitioner’s removal order became administratively final on August 4, 2025.
See Y.T.D. v. Andrews, Case No. 1:25-CV-01100 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2675760, at *1 n.5
(E.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2025), appeal dismissed, No. 25-7265, 2025 WL 4233827 (9th Cir.
Dec. 2, 2025) (“If both parties waive appeal or neither party appeals within the 30-day
period, the withholding or CAT relief grant and the accompanying removal order become
administratively final.”) (citing 8 C.F.R § 1241.1). 	Petitioner’s detention is therefore
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a).
B. 	Due Process
Petitioner claims her “continued detention is arbitrary and unlawful, and she requests
that this Court order her immediate release from ICE custody.” (Doc. 4 ) Petitioner also
claims that “ICE [deviated] from its own policy by detaining [her] after withholding was
granted.” (Doc. 1 at 6.)2
The Supreme Court has recognized a six-month presumptively reasonable period of
2 Petitioner does not identify any applicable policy from which ICE “deviated” in support
of her APA claim. (See Doc. 1 at 6; Doc. 4 at 3, 9–10 (alleging ICE has a “long-standing
policy [ ] to release non-citizens immediately following a grant of asylum”) (emphasis
added).) The Court declines to consider any claims raised in Petitioner’s Reply that were
not asserted in the Petition. 	See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir.
1994) (“A Traverse is not the proper pleading to raise additional grounds for relief.”);
Esquivel-Ipina v. LaRose, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 2998361, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24,
2025). 	As such, and in light of the disposition herein, the APA claim is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Case 3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 6

5
3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB
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
detention after a noncitizen’s removal order becomes final. 	Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.
After the six-month period expires, Petitioner has the initial burden of showing “good
reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future.” Id. Once the noncitizen meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to
Respondents to “respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. If “removal
is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by
statute,” and the noncitizen must be released. 	Id. at 699–700; see 28 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3)
(“If the [noncitizen] does not leave or is not removed within the [90-day] removal period,
the [noncitizen], pending removal, shall be subject to supervision under regulations
prescribed by the Attorney General.”).
Judge Sammartino previously denied Petitioner’s first habeas petition without
prejudice. 	See Karapetyan, Case No. 3:25-cv-03640-JLS-AHG, ECF No. 5. 	Judge
Sammartino found that “Petitioner’s detention has not been unreasonably prolonged”
because: (1) the six-month period of presumptive reasonableness had not passed; and (2)
even if the presumptively reasonable period had passed, Petitioner failed to meet her initial
burden of demonstrating there is good reason to believe that there is no significant
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Id. at 5.
In the instant Petition, Petitioner claims her continued detention is prolonged under
Zadvydas because she has now been detained for over six months. 	(Doc. 4 at 2.) 	As
Petitioner raises the same legal issues and seeks the same relief, the Court adopts Judge
Sammartino’s Order issued on January 22, 2026, and applies it here. See, Case No. 3:25-
cv-03640-JLS-AHG, ECF No. 5.
Because Petitioner’s order of removal became final on August 4, 2025, the six-
month presumptively reasonable period expired on February 4, 2026. 	Although the six-
month period has now passed, the Court nonetheless finds that Petitioner has not provided
sufficient information to meet her initial burden under Zadvydas. Aside from asserting that
she has been in custody for longer than the “180 days threshold” (see Doc. 4 at 2), Petitioner
raises no argument or reason to believe that her removal is not significantly likely in the
Case 3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 6

6
3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB
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
foreseeable future. See Azzo v. Noem, 2025 WL 3535208, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2025)
(“Petitioner must offer more than ‘conclusory statements suggesting that he will not’ be
removed”) (quoting 	Andrade v. Gonzalez, 459 F.3d 538, 543 (5th Cir. 2006)); 	cf.
Abdirahman v. Noem, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00177-RBM-AHG, 2026 WL 311509, at *2 (S.D.
Cal. Feb. 5, 2026) (holding petitioner satisfied his burden under Zadvydas because he was
granted withholding of removal to his country of origin and established that “third country
removal is exceedingly rare, and ICE has not been able to remove [him] to a third country
for over 7 months.”) (internal citation omitted). 	Petitioner therefore fails to satisfy her
initial burden under Zadvydas.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	Petition 	is 	DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Petitioner may file an amended petition curing the identified deficiencies
on or before April 18, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 23, 2026
____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00697-RBM-MSB Document 5 Filed 03/23/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 6