Osaretin v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
25-cv-3612-JES-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
JERRY OSAZEE OSARETIN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION
CENTER,
Respondent.
Case No.: 25-cv-3612-JES-MSB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is Petitioner Jerry Osazee Osaretin’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The Court issued an Order to
Show Cause, and Respondent filed a response, acknowledged that Petitioner must be
considered detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), pursuant to the final judgment entered in
Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025
WL 3289861 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025). ECF No. 6. Accordingly, on December 24, 2025,
the Court issued an order granting the petition in part and ordered a bond hearing. ECF No.
7.
On January 5, 2026, Respondent filed a Notice of Compliance, stating that Petitioner
was provided with a bond hearing but Petitioner wanted more time to review the
government’s evidence and submit additional evidence in support of bond. ECF No. 8. The
Court ordered further supplemental briefing from the parties. ECF No. 9. In response, on
Case 3:25-cv-03612-JES-MSB Document 15 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
25-cv-3612-JES-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
January 16, 2026, Respondent filed a notice stating that a bond hearing was held on January
13, 2026, and Petitioner was denied bond because he was found to be a danger to the
community. ECF No. 10. No further explanation was given and no copy of the bond hearing
order was provided. Id. Thus, the Court again ordered further supplemental briefing,
specifically directing Respondent to address the due process issues raised in the petition.
ECF No. 11. Respondents filed a further supplemental brief on January 23, 2026. ECF No.
13.
The supplemental briefing establishes the following. Petitioner is a native of Nigeria,
who entered the United States on August 8, 2022, near the San Ysidro Port of Entry. ECF
No. 13-1, Ex. 1. He was put into expedited removal proceedings and made a credible fear
claim at this time. Id., Exs. 1, 2. Subsequently on September 2, 2022, Petitioner was
released on parole. Id., Ex. 4. The parole form stated the following:
Your parole authorization is valid for one year beginning from the date on this
notice and will automatically terminate upon your departure or removal from
the United States or at the end of the one-year period unless ICE provides you
with an extension at its discretion . ICE may also terminate parole on notice
prior to the automatic termination date. Parole is entirely within the discretion
of ICE and can be terminated at any time and for any reason. Your parole is
not valid for work authorization and is not an admission in lawful status.
Parole is conditioned on you complying with the terms and conditions of your
release. You must notify ICE and the immigration judge of any address
correction or address change. You must report for every scheduled hearing
before the immigration court and every appointment as directed by ICE
(including:for removal from the United States should you become subject to
a final removal order). You must not violate any local, State or Federal laws
or ordinances. You must comply with any other specified conditions if
identified separately.
Id. Petitioner has since lived in the United States. He was re-detained on May 15, 2025, in
Boston, Massachusetts, at the Westborough District Court, where he was facing charges
for Larceny, Identity Theft, and Conspiracy. Id., Ex. 5. When he exited the courthouse,
agents put him into immigration custody. Id.
Case 3:25-cv-03612-JES-MSB Document 15 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
25-cv-3612-JES-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
In its supplemental briefing, Respondent first argues that Petitioner’s claims and
requests for release are jurisdictionally barred, or alternatively, that Petitioner has not
exhausted administrative remedies. ECF No. 13 at 4-7. The Court rejects these arguments
for the same reasons it has in its previous orders. See, e.g., Sanchez v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-
2396-JES-MMP, 2025 WL 2770629, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025); Van Tran v. Noem,
No. 25-CV-2334-JES-MSB, 2025 WL 2770623, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2025); Rios v.
U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-01796-JES-DEB, 2025 WL 3022854, at *1
(S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2025).
On the merits, Respondent argues that no notice was required to terminate
Petitioner’s parole because it had already expired since the one-year period it was originally
granted for had already expired. ECF No. 14 at 9. Since Petitioner was granted parole on
September 2, 2022, per the terms of the parole, it would have automatically expired on
September 2, 2023, and there is no evidence in the record that the parole was extended.
Alternatively, Respondent argues that his parole was appropriately revoked because he was
charged with committing a violation of state law in Massachusetts. Id.
The Court disagrees with Respondent that an expiration of parole automatically
extinguishes any due process claim. Courts have repeatedly held that liberty interests do
not expire when parole does. “When he was released from his initial detention on parole,
Petitioner took with him a liberty interest which is entitled to the full protections of the due
process clause.” Ramirez Tesara v. Wamsley, 800 F. Supp. 3d 1130, 1136 (W.D. Wash.
2025). Rejecting similar arguments from the government, the court held that “this private
interest did not expire along with Petitioner’s parole agreement. Once established,
Petitioner’s interest in liberty is a constitutional right which may only be revoked through
methods that comport with due process.” Id.; see also Rodriguez Cabrera v. Mattos, No.
2:25-CV-01551-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 3072687, at *11 (D. Nev. Nov. 3, 2025) (“Petitioner
has a fundamental interest in freedom from physical confinement, and that liberty interest
is particularly strong given his initial release from detention in 2022, and the fact that
Respondents did not seek his return to custody upon the expiration of his parole in
Case 3:25-cv-03612-JES-MSB Document 15 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
25-cv-3612-JES-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
December 2022, or in the three years since.”); Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01471-
KES-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 3254999, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2025) (“[P]etitioner’s liberty
interest did not expire along with his parole.”).
That said, the Court does find a difference in Petitioner’s case given his new criminal
charges. In each of the cases above, the courts noted that each petitioner continued to
adhere by the conditions of the expired parole. See Ramirez Tesara, 800 F. Supp. 3d at
1138 (noting that at the time of re-detention, “his parole agreement had expired, but the
record reflects that he had continued to follow the terms of his release by submitting
pictures of himself, responding to messages and phone calls, and reporting to ICE officers
in person when requested”); Omer G.G., 2025 WL 3254999, at *2 (noting that “[d]uring
his time on release, petitioner maintained a clean criminal record, appeared for all in-person
check-ins, and kept ICE updated on his address”); Rodriguez Cabrera, 2025 WL 3072687,
at *4 (noting lack of criminal history). Thus, each of these courts found that the government
could not explain why parole should not be extended at the time of its expiration,
particularly where the petitioners relied on the status in the meantime to build ties to the
community, establish a family, and seek immigration relief, such as asylum or adjustment
of status claims. See Ramirez Tesara, 800 F. Supp. 3d at 1137; Rodriguez Cabrera, 2025
WL 3072687, at *12; Omer G.G., 2025 WL 3254999, at *5-6.
Here, Petitioner does not dispute the new criminal charge. See ECF No. 12 (noting
his criminal case). The conditions of his parole do note that he “must not violate any local,
State or Federal laws or ordinances.” In addition, Petitioner has been now granted a bond
redetermination hearing. There is no allegation that the bond hearing was not a bona fide
hearing. Thus, the Court finds that it has granted all the relief it can to Petitioner at this
time.
//
//
//
//
Case 3:25-cv-03612-JES-MSB Document 15 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
25-cv-3612-JES-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
Accordingly, having previously GRANTED IN PART the petition by ordering a
bond redetermination hearing which has now taken place, the Court DENIES the
remainder of the petition. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03612-JES-MSB Document 15 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5