Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-1038-CAB-SBC
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
ALEIXI RODRIGUEZ ESTEVEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE,
Respondent.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-1038-CAB-SBC
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Before the Court is Petitioner Aleixi Rodriguez Estevez’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] Petitioner claims
he is being detained by immigration authorities in violation of the Fifth Amendment. [Id.
at 6–8.] 	He seeks immediate release or, at minimum, a bond hearing before a neutral
decisionmaker. [Id. at 8.] For the reasons below, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the
request for a writ of habeas corpus and ORDERS that Petitioner receive an individualized
bond hearing.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a Cuban citizen who entered the United States without inspection near
Key West, Florida on December 22, 2024. [Doc. No. 4 at 2.] He was determined to be an
inadmissible arriving alien, placed into removal proceedings, and taken into Immigration
Case 3:26-cv-01038-CAB-SBC Document 5 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

2
3:26-cv-1038-CAB-SBC
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
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). 	[Id.] 	He has
remained in custody since then.
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 he 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
A. 	Jurisdiction
Respondent challenges this Court’s jurisdiction based on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). [Doc.
No. 4 at 4–5.] 	This Court and innumerable others have repeatedly rejected the same
jurisdictional argument under similar factual scenarios. Because Petitioner challenges the
legality of his detention and not the decision to commence proceedings, the adjudication
of his removal case, or any action to execute a removal order, the Court rejects
Respondent’s jurisdictional arguments by adopting and incorporating by reference the
same reasoning expressed in Chavez v. Noem, 801 F.Supp.3d 1133, 1138–39 (S.D. Cal.
2025).
B. 	Due Process Claim
Petitioner argues that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing—nearly fifteen
months—violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process. [Petition at 6.] Respondent
counters that the relevant statutory language of § 1225(b)(2) and Supreme Court precedent
require Petitioner’s detention until his removal proceedings are resolved. [Doc. No. 4 at
5–10.] Respondent cites to Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S.
103, 138–40 (2020) to argue that Petitioner has no due process rights beyond those afforded
by statute. 	[Id. at 7.] 	The Court has previously discussed that while Supreme Court
precedent does establish that the statutory language of § 1225(b) mandates detention, the
Case 3:26-cv-01038-CAB-SBC Document 5 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

3
3:26-cv-1038-CAB-SBC
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
Supreme Court did not decide the constitutional question of whether indefinite detention
is permitted. 	See L.R.G. v. LaRose, 3:25-CV-3490-CAB-MSB, Doc. No. 13 at 5–6 (S.D.
Cal. Jan. 16, 2026).
As to the constitutional question, this Court recently held in L.R.G. that a due process
violation may occur when § 1225(b) results in practically indefinite civil detention. 3:25-
CV-3490-CAB-MSB, Doc. No. 13, at *6; see Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F.Supp.3d 768, 772
(S.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across the country in concluding
that 	an 	unreasonably 	prolonged 	detention 	under 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1225(b) 	without 	an
individualized bond hearing violates due process.”). Respondents’ position has also been
questioned by the Ninth Circuit:
We have grave doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged
detention without any process is constitutional or that those who founded our
democracy precisely to protect against the government’s arbitrary deprivation
of liberty would have thought so. Arbitrary civil detention is not a feature of
our American government. “[L]iberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial
or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” 	Civil detention violates
due 	process 	outside 	of 	“certain 	special 	and 	narrow 	nonpunitive
circumstances.”
Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 256–57 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal citation omitted)
(alteration in original).
Though there is no brightline test for a violation, this Court and many others have
used the Banda test which considers the following six factors to determine when detention
under § 1225(b) violates due process: (1) the total length of detention to date, which is the
most important factor; (2) the likely duration of future detention; (3) the conditions of
detention; (4) delays in removal proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) delays in removal
proceedings caused by the government; and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings
will result in a final order of removal. 	Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F.Supp.3d 1099, 1106
(W.D. Wash. 2019).
The first factor weighs in Petitioner’s favor given that he has been detained for over
a year. See Sibomana v. LaRose, No. 22-CV-933-LL-NLS, 2023 WL 3028093, at *4 (S.D.
Case 3:26-cv-01038-CAB-SBC Document 5 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

4
3:26-cv-1038-CAB-SBC
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
Cal. Apr. 20, 2023) (finding that courts are typically wary of continued custody without a
bond hearing when detention extends beyond one year). 	Regarding the second factor,
which 	consists 	of the 	“anticipated 	duration 	of 	all 	removal 	proceedings—including
administrative and judicial appeals[,]” Petitioner has a final merits hearing scheduled for
May 11, 2026. 	[See Doc. No 4 at 9.] 	Accordingly, the second factor slightly favors
Respondent, as Petitioner’s hearing is scheduled but still months away. 	As to the third
Banda factor, Petitioner’s confinement is similar to penal confinement because, as the
Court explained with respect to the petitioner in L.R.G., who was also detained at Otay
Mesa Detention Center, Petitioner is detained “in a secure facility, guarded by armed
personnel, and has restricted access to outdoor space, activities, and communication.” No.
3:25-CV-3490-CAB-MSB, Doc. No. 13, at *8 (S.D. Cal. January 16, 2026). 	Thus, the
third factor favors Petitioner
As to the fourth and fifth factors, Petitioner states that his “detention is [e]xcessive
and no longer serves a legitimate civil immigration purpose.” [Petition at 8.] Respondent
does not provide any explanation for the delay or argue that Petitioner contributed to the
delay. [Doc. No. 4 at 9.] Given Respondent’s lack of explanation for its own delay, the
fourth and fifth factors weigh in favor of Petitioner. Finally, the Court finds the sixth factor
neutral as it is unclear what the result of Petitioner’s removal proceedings will be.
In sum, factors one (the most important), three, four, and five weigh for Petitioner,
while factor two slightly weighs against him, and factor six is neutral. 	The Court thus
concludes that Petitioner’s continued mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) without a
bond hearing violates his right to due process. 	Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and
individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.
///
///
///
///
///
Case 3:26-cv-01038-CAB-SBC Document 5 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

5
3:26-cv-1038-CAB-SBC
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, the Court finds that Petitioner’s prolonged detention without
a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 	The Court
therefore PARTIALLY GRANTS the writ of habeas corpus and ORDERS Respondent
to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing by April 1, 2026. The Clerk of the
Court shall close the case on April 10, 2026 unless the Court is notified that the bond
hearing did not occur.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01038-CAB-SBC Document 5 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5