Labadze v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
3:26-cv-00862-CAB-DEB
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
IRINE LABADZE,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF OTAY MESA
DETENTION CENTER,
Respondent.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00862-CAB-DEB
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. No. 1]
Petitioner Irine Labadze (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] Petitioner claims that Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) improperly re-detained her on December 19, 20251
without notice. 	[Id. at 6.] 	For the reasons discussed below, the Court ORDERS
Respondent to immediately release Petitioner from custody under the same conditions
which existed immediately prior to her re-detention on December 19, 2025.
1 Respondent states that Petitioner was taken back into custody on December 20, 2025, [Doc. No. 3 at
2], while Petitioner states that she was taken back into custody on December 19, 2025, [Petition at 6,
Doc. No. 5 at 2].
Case 3:26-cv-00862-CAB-DEB Document 6 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:26-cv-00862-CAB-DEB
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
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a native of Georgia who came to the United States in 2023. [Doc. No.
3 (“Response”) at 2.] She entered the United States without inspection near Yuma, Arizona
and was subsequently apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and taken into ICE custody.
[Id.] 	On April 2, 2024, an Immigration Judge issued an order denying Petitioner’s
application for asylum and ordering that she be removed from the United States to Georgia,
but granted withholding of removal to Georgia pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). 	[Id.]
The Immigration Judge’s order became final on April 2, 2024; Petitioner was released on
an order of supervision on April 25, 2024. [Id.]
Petitioner was re-detained at a regular ICE check-in without any notice. [Petition at
6; Doc. No. 5 at 9.] 	ICE does not have a travel document for Petitioner, nor has ICE
identified a third country for Petitioner’s removal, but asserts that “[s]ince Petitioner’s re-
detention, ICE has worked expeditiously to effectuate her resettlement in a third country”
and “is in the process of identifying countries that may be willing to accept Petitioner for
removal.” [Response at 5–6.] Respondent argues that Petitioner is properly detained under
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). [Id. at 3.]
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of a petitioner’s custody and seeks
to secure release from that illegal custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may
grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” The petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that she is in illegal custody. See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-BJC-
BJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. [Response at 3–4.] The Supreme Court’s holding in Zadvydas squarely
contradicts this argument. There, the Supreme Court rejected the application of § 1252 to
limit judicial review of indefinite post-removal-period detentions under § 1231(a)(6) and
Case 3:26-cv-00862-CAB-DEB Document 6 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:26-cv-00862-CAB-DEB
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
held “that § 2241 habeas corpus proceedings remain available as a forum for statutory and
constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
678, 687–88 (2001). 	This Court is thus satisfied of its subject matter jurisdiction and
proceeds to the merits.
Petitioner argues that she has a protected liberty interest in her prior release, which
ICE violated when they re-detained her on December 19, 2025. [Petition at 6; Doc. No. 5
at 2, 9.] Respondent argues that Petitioner has been detained for less than six months since
her order of removal became final, therefore, her detention is presumptively reasonable
under Zadvydas v. Davis. [See Response at 4.]
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be
“deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V.
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of
physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S.
at 690. This protection applies to noncitizens as it does to U.S. citizens. See Wong Wing
v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896) (“[E]ven aliens shall not . . . be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.”).
“Courts have previously found that individuals released from immigration custody
on bond have a protectable liberty interest in remaining out of custody[.]” Valencia Zapata
v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-07492-RFL, 2025 WL 2578207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025)
(listing cases). Indeed, “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.” 	Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F.
Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2025) (cleaned up) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972)).
In Noori v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-1824-GPC-MSB, 2025 WL 2800149 (S.D. Cal. Oct.
1, 2025), the government violated a noncitizen parolee’s Fifth Amendment due process
rights when the government revoked his parole by sending a mass electronic notification
one morning and arresting him later that day at his immigration hearing. Id. at *2, 11. The
Case 3:26-cv-00862-CAB-DEB Document 6 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:26-cv-00862-CAB-DEB
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
Noori court thus held that he had a “protectable expectation of his due process rights in his
removal proceedings . . . and was entitled to both notification of revocation and the
reasoning 	for 	revocation, 	if not 	also 	an 	opportunity 	to 	be heard 	and 	contest 	the
determination.” Id. at *11.
Here, Petitioner received even less due process than the Noori petitioner. Petitioner
received no notification or individualized reason as to why her release was being revoked
before she was summarily detained on December 19, 2025. Nor has Respondent explained,
even after the fact, what circumstances have changed to warrant Petitioner’s re-detention
or how there is a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future when ICE has not yet even identified a third country to which Petitioner
may be removed, let alone begun the process to do so. Giving Petitioner a bond hearing
now would not remedy the Fifth Amendment violation she has already experienced. Only
release from detention can accomplish that now.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus and ORDERS Respondent to immediately release Petitioner from custody under
the same conditions which existed immediately prior to Petitioner’s detention on December
19, 2025.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00862-CAB-DEB Document 6 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4