Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
25-cv-3679-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
LUIS ANTONIO RAMOS
VILLANUEVA,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-cv-3679-CAB-SBC
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. No. 1]
On December 19, 2025, Petitioner Luis Antonio Ramos Villanueva filed a Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	[Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).]
Petitioner claims he is being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
in violation of the Fifth Amendment. [Petition at 11–12.] He seeks immediate release or,
at minimum, a bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. [Id. at 14–15.]
For the following reasons, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the request for a writ
of habeas corpus and ORDERS that Petitioner receive an individualized bond hearing as
described below.
///
Case 3:25-cv-03679-CAB-SBC Document 8 Filed 01/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

2
25-cv-3679-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
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a Mexican national who applied for entry to the United States at the San
Ysidro Port of Entry on January 9, 2025. 	[Petition at 7.] 	He was determined to be an
inadmissible arriving alien, placed into expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1), and taken into immigration detention. [Id.; Doc. No. 6 at 2.] After a positive
credible fear determination, removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) were initiated.
[Petition at 7.] 	On August 1, 2025, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed to
Mexico. [Id. at 8; Doc. No. 6 at 2.] Petitioner has appealed that decision to the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). [Id.]
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
Respondents challenge this Court’s jurisdiction based on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). [Doc.
No. 6 at 3–4.] Section 1252(g) provides in relevant part: “[N]o court shall have jurisdiction
to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action
by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal
orders against any alien under this chapter.”
As the Supreme Court reasoned in Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm.,
525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999), § 1252(g) “applies only to three discrete actions that the Attorney
General may take: her ‘decision or action’ to ‘commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or
execute removal orders.’” 	Id. (emphasis in original); see also Ibarra-Perez v. United
States, 154 F.4th 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2025) (“The Supreme Court has instructed that we
Case 3:25-cv-03679-CAB-SBC Document 8 Filed 01/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

3
25-cv-3679-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
should read § 1252(g) narrowly.”). 	Accordingly, § 1252(g) does not bar the “many other
decisions or actions that may be part of the deportation process[,]” including the decision
“to refuse reconsideration” of the “final order that is the product of the adjudication.” Reno,
525 U.S. at 482. 	Moreover, “[i]t is implausible that the mention of three discrete events
along the road to deportation was a shorthand way of referring to all claims arising from
deportation proceedings.” Id.
Here, the Petition does not contest the decision to commence proceedings, the
adjudication of Petitioner’s removal case, or any action to execute a removal order. Rather,
Petitioner seeks review of the legality of his detention, arguing that the length of time he
has been detained violates due process. 	He does not seek to relitigate in this Court the
Immigration Judge’s order of removal; indeed, he is separately pursuing an appeal with the
Board of Immigration Appeals. The sole relief Petitioner seeks here is release from custody
while his asylum case is adjudicated. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied of its jurisdiction
and proceeds to the merits.
B. 	Due Process Claim
Petitioner argues that his prolonged detention—nearly thirteen months—violates his
Fifth Amendment right to due process. [Petition at 11–14.] Respondents counter that the
relevant 	statutory 	language 	of 	§ 1225(b)(1) 	and 	Supreme 	Court 	precedent 	require
Petitioner’s detention until his removal proceedings are resolved, including his claim for
asylum. [Doc. No. 6 at 4–9.]
As this Court recently held in L.R.G. v. LaRose, 3:25-CV-3490-CAB-MSB, Doc.
No. 13 at 6 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026), a due process violation may occur when § 1225(b)(1)
results in practically indefinite civil detention. 	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)(1) 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
Case 3:25-cv-03679-CAB-SBC Document 8 Filed 01/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

4
25-cv-3679-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
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 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.
Cal. Apr. 20, 2023) (finding that courts are typically wary of continued custody without a
bond hearing when detention extends beyond one year). As to the second factor, Petitioner
has appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the BIA; his appeal remains pending.
[Petition at 13.] 	Given the backlog of cases before the BIA and the possibility of a
subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the Court finds this factor weighs in Petitioner’s
favor. The third factor favors Petitioner as he is detained at a secure facility and he alleges
that the facility is providing him inadequate medical treatment. [Id. at 14.] The fourth and
fifth factors are neutral given that both Parties contributed to delays in the adjudication of
Petitioner’s case. [See Petition at 7–8 (detailing timeline of Petitioner’s hearings, including
Petitioner’s change of counsel and additional time granted for Petitioner to prepare relief
application).] 	Finally, as to the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a
final order, the Court finds this factor neutral. See Banda, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1120 (finding
sixth factor neutral where petitioner’s asylum application was on appeal and court had no
information to determine whether petitioner may be removed).
In sum, factors two, four, five, and six are neutral, but factor one—the most
important—and factor three favor Petitioner. 	The Court thus concludes that Petitioner’s
continued mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1) without a bond hearing violates his right
to due process. Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing before
an immigration court, at which Respondents must justify his continued detention by a
showing of clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger
to the community if released. 	See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011),
abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (“Given the
substantial liberty interest at stake . . . we hold that the government must prove by clear
and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify
Case 3:25-cv-03679-CAB-SBC Document 8 Filed 01/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

5
25-cv-3679-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
denial of bond[.]”); see also Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 785–86 (9th Cir. 2024)
(stating that “the BIA properly noted that the government bore the burden to establish by
clear and convincing evidence that [petitioner] is a danger to the community” with respect
to a bond hearing for a noncitizen detained under § 1226(c)).
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 request for a writ of habeas corpus and ORDERS
Respondents to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing as described above
within fourteen days of the date of this Order. The Parties must provide the Court a joint
status update on the outcome of the bond hearing within two business days of its
occurrence.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03679-CAB-SBC Document 8 Filed 01/26/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5