Perez v. Casey et al

1
26-cv-0655-JES-BLM
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
ARNOLDO JERONIMO PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JAREMY CASEY, Administrator of
Imperial Detention Center; GREGORY J.
ARCHAMBEAULT, Field Officer
Director for the San Diego Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Office; TODD
LYONS, Acting Director of United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the United
States Department of Homeland Security;
and PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General
of the United States, acting in their official
capacities,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0655-JES-BLM
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is Petitioner Arnoldo Jeronimo Perez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on February 3, 2026. ECF No. 1
(“Pet.”). The Court ordered Respondents to show cause why the Petition should not be
granted no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 6, 2026. ECF No. 2. Respondents failed to do
Case 3:26-cv-00655-JES-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

2
26-cv-0655-JES-BLM
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
so, and have still not made any appearance in this matter to date. Petitioner also declined
to file an optional Traverse. The Court thus evaluates the Petition on its face, and GRANTS
the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a 19-year-old Guatemalan national who has been residing in the United
States since 2022. Pet. ¶ 1. Upon arrival in the United States, Petitioner was designated an
unaccompanied minor, transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement,
and then released to the care of his aunt in Georgia. Id. ¶ 26. Petitioner has resided with his
aunt in Georgia ever since. Id. ¶ 27. Petitioner has no criminal history, and has significant
communities ties in the Atlanta area. Id.
On November 21, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by immigration authorities while
driving to pick up his minor sister from an Office of Refugee Resettlement shelter so she
could be reunited with their family in Georgia. Id. ¶ 28. He was placed in removal
proceedings, and denied bond by an immigration judge on jurisdictional grounds. Id. ¶¶
29-31.
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). A court may grant a writ of
habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the
Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas
corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in
that context that its protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301
(2001). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within the purview
of a district court’s habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see
also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003).
Case 3:26-cv-00655-JES-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

3
26-cv-0655-JES-BLM
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
III. DISCUSSION
In his petition, Petitioner argues that his re-detention and the manner in which it was
carried out violates the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”),
which requires a pre-deprivation hearing before re-detention. Pet. ¶¶ 58-61. Because
Respondents have declined to oppose the Petition, the Court evaluates the Petition on its
face and agrees that Petitioner is entitled to release on this basis.
The TVPRA governs the detention of unaccompanied minors who are apprehended
at or near the U.S. border, and requires them to be “promptly placed in the least restrictive
setting that is in the best interest of the child.” 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(1). The TVPRA allows
minors to be released to the custody of guardians upon determination the child is not a
danger to themselves or community and does not present a flight risk. See id. at
1232(c)(2)(a). Aliens afforded release under the TVPRA have the same due process
protections regarding re-detention as those granted parole or release as adults: at a
minimum, they are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the
individualized changed circumstances justifying revocation in their case. Saravia v.
Session, 280 F.Supp.3d 1168, 1176-77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also R.D.T.M. v. Wofford, No.
1:25-CV-01141-KES-SKO, 2025 WL 2617255 at *3-6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025). As this
Court has previously explained, notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the revocation
of a liberty interest like parole or supervised release must be meaningful to be
constitutionally sufficient, which requires that the government comport with the
requirements of the statutes governing that individual’s status. See Rios v. Noem, No. 25-
CV-2866-JES-VET, 2025 WL 3141207, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025) (“An alien's
opportunity to be heard regarding a change in his status is only meaningful if the
government comports with its own internal standards regarding parole revocation. DHS
has the authority to revoke an alien's supervised release ‘at any time’ on a discretionary,
but not unlimited, basis.”); Sanchez v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2396-JES-MMP, 2025 WL
2770629 at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025).
Case 3:26-cv-00655-JES-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

4
26-cv-0655-JES-BLM
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
The TVPRA statute requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security consider the
“least restrictive placement” available for those who turn 18 and are transferred to its
custody, and consider alternatives to detention. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(b). The statute is
silent, however, on the revocation of any release already granted under the TVPRA once
an individual of such release turns 18. See id. Petitioner asserts, and Respondents do not
contest, that the rules governing TVPRA release continue to control the revocation of that
release after the individual turns 18. Pet. ¶ 40. At least one court in this Circuit has held the
same. R.D.T.M, 2025 W.L. 2617255 at *4-5. This approach to TVPRA release comports
with the due process and regulatory principles the Court has applied in other cases
involving previously released aliens: when the government grants someone a liberty
interest, it must continue to act under the principles governing that interest and may not
arbitrarily re-detain without justification. See Bui v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Det. Facility,
No. 25-CV-2111-JES-DEB, 2025 WL 2988356 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2025); Nguyen v. Noem,
No. 25-CV-3062-JES-VET, 2025 WL 3251374, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025); Sanchez,
2025 WL 2770629, at *3; Saengphet v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-2909-JES-BLM, 2025 WL
3240808, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025).
Here, Petitioner was granted release under the TVPRA, creating a liberty interest
protected by the Due Process clause and a requirement that the government adhere to its
own regulations regarding his re-detention. See Pet. ¶ 60. Petitioner alleges that he was not
provided with an opportunity to be heard regarding the revocation of his release, and that
the government failed to adhere to the TVPRA’s requirement regarding “least restrictive
setting” and alternatives to detention when re-detaining him. Id. ¶ 61. The Form I-213
reflects this, stating only that Petitioner was detained at a vehicle stop without proper legal
documents to be in the United States. ECF No. 1-2 at 5. No documentation before this
Court indicates that Petitioner was informed of any individualized changed circumstances
justifying revocation of his release, or that he was given meaningful opportunity to be heard
regarding that revocation. Further, the Petition states, and Respondents do not contest, that
there are no changed circumstances or other factor in this case justifying re-detention,
Case 3:26-cv-00655-JES-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

5
26-cv-0655-JES-BLM
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
meaning that any notice and opportunity to be heard that did occur could not have been
meaningful. Pet. ¶ 60; see Rios, 2025 WL 3141207 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Respondents violated the TVPRA, and the due process
rights due to Petitioner under his TVPRA release, when they re-detained him on November
21, 2025.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas
corpus. Because the Court grants the petition on TVPRA grounds and concludes that
Respondents’ revocation of Petitioner’s parole violates procedural due process,
Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to
any conditions of his preexisting release that existed at the time he was re-detained. The
Parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report by February 11, 2026, confirming that
Petitioner has been released. The Court DENIES AS MOOT the remainder of Petitioner’s
claims. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 10, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00655-JES-BLM Document 3 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5