Alejandri-Rodriguez v. LaRose et al

1
3:26-cv-00963-RBM-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
LUIS ALEJANDRI-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior
Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et
al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00963-RBM-DEB
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 1]
On February 15, 2026, Petitioner Luis Alejandri-Rodriguez (“Petitioner”) filed a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
“Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without
inspection in or about September 2006.” 	(Doc. 1 ¶ 1.) 	“He was not apprehended at the
border and lived in the United States undetected for nearly twenty years.” 	(Id.) 	“On
January 27, 2026, Petitioner was arrested in the interior of the United States and was
subsequently taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (‘ICE’)
officers.” (Id. ¶ 27.)
Case 3:26-cv-00963-RBM-DEB Document 6 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00963-RBM-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
Petitioner claims he is detained under section 235(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) based on the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”)
interpretation of the statute, articulated in Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216
(BIA 2025). 	(Id. ¶ 2.) 	Petitioner remains detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center
“without access to an individualized custody hearing under INA § 236(a).” (Id. ¶¶ 1, 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 claims his continued detention without a bond hearing violates the INA
and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 38–47.) Respondents concede
that Petitioner, as a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz,
— F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025), is detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) and therefore entitled to a bond hearing. (Doc. 4 at 2.) While Petitioner argues
that his immediate release is the proper remedy (see Doc. 5 at 2), the Court finds it
appropriate to hold a bond hearing under § 1226(a) to determine the conditions of
Petitioner’s potential release. 	Because the Parties agree that Petitioner is detained under
§ 1226, the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing.1
1 In light of the disposition herein, the Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining
grounds for relief.
Case 3:26-cv-00963-RBM-DEB Document 6 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00963-RBM-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
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED IN PART. To
the extent Petitioner requests to be immediately released from custody, the Petition is
DENIED. Accordingly, the Court further ORDERS as follows:
1. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within seven days of the entry of this Order. 	At the bond hearing,
Respondents shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing
evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight. 2
Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that his detention
is governed by the mandatory detention provision under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
2. If no bond hearing is held within that time frame, the Court ORDERS that
Petitioner be immediately released under reasonable conditions of supervision.
3. Respondents SHALL FILE a status report on or before March 11, 2026,
indicating whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing, the result of that
hearing, and the Parties’ respective positions on whether this action may be
dismissed as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 25, 2026
____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 See Sadeqi v. LaRose, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12,
2025) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other
grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018)).
Case 3:26-cv-00963-RBM-DEB Document 6 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3