Mora Gutierrez v. Noem et al

1
26-cv-112-RSH-JLB
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
LAZARO MORA GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-112-RSH-JLB
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On January 8, 2026, petitioner Lazaro Mora Gutierrez filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”), as well as a motion for a
temporary restraining order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2.
Petitioner is a citizen of Cuba. ECF No. 1 at 2. He was initially arrested by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on June 25, 2016, when he attempted to
enter the United States unlawfully on a homemade watercraft. ECF No. 5-2 ¶ 6. On or
about March 11, 2017, Petitioner was issued a final administrative removal order. Id. ¶ 8.
On January 4, 2018, however, Petitioner was released from custody on an order of
supervision, because DHS was unable to remove Petitioner to Cuba. ECF No. 1 at 2 & Ex.
A; ECF No. 5-2 ¶ 9. Thereafter, on or about October 22, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by
ICE. ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 5-2 ¶ 10. He remains in detention at the Otay Mesa Detention
Case 3:26-cv-00112-RSH-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
26-cv-112-RSH-JLB
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
Center in San Diego, California. ECF No. 1 at 2.
In the Petition, Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his detention, and asks for an
order directing his release. Id. at 17. As set forth below, the Court grants the Petition.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits 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). A prisoner bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	ANALYSIS
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, “when an alien is ordered removed, the
Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days.”
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). “If the alien does not leave or is not removed within the removal
period, the alien, pending removal, shall be subject to supervision under regulations
prescribed by the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3).
DHS regulations permit the release of an alien on an order of supervision where,
among other circumstances, there is no significant likelihood that the alien will be removed
in the reasonably foreseeable future. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.13. An alien who violates the terms
of such an order of supervision may be returned to custody. Id. § 241.13(i)(1). Additionally,
even where there has been no violation, DHS “may revoke an alien’s release under this
section and return the alien to custody if, on account of changed circumstances, [DHS]
determines that there is a significant likelihood that the alien may be removed in the
reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. § 241.13(i)(2). The regulations provide for certain
procedures upon revocation: “Upon revocation, the alien will be notified of the reasons for
revocation of his or her release. [DHS] will conduct an initial informal interview promptly
after his or her return to [DHS] custody to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the
reasons for revocation stated in the notification. The alien may submit any evidence or
information that he or she believes shows there is no significant likelihood he or she be
Case 3:26-cv-00112-RSH-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
26-cv-112-RSH-JLB
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
removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, or that he or she has not violated the order
of supervision.” Id. § 241.13(i)(3).
Respondents candidly concede that these procedures were not followed here. ECF
No. 5 at 1-2. Additionally, Respondents do not contend that, prior to revocation of
Petitioner’s release, DHS determined, on account of changed circumstances, that there is a
significant likelihood that he could be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Government agencies are required to follow their own regulations. United States ex
rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268 (1954); Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v.
Norton, 340 F.3d 835, 852 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts have determined that where DHS fails
to follow its own regulations in revoking release, the detention is unlawful and the
petitioner’s release must be ordered. See, e.g., Orellana v. Baker, No. 25-1788-TDC, 2025
WL 2444087, at *8 (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2025); M.S.L. v. Bostock, No. 6:25-cv-1204-AA,
2025 WL 2430267, at *10-11 (D. Or. Aug. 21, 2025); Ceesay v. Kurzdorfer, 781 F. Supp.
3d 137, 165-66 (W.D.N.Y. 2025); Rombot v. Souza, 296 F. Supp. 3d 383, 388 (D. Mass.
2017). This Court reaches the same conclusion and will therefore grant the Petition and
order Petitioner’s release.
The Petition also requests a permanent injunction regulating the terms under which
Petitioner may be detained in the future or removed to a country other than Cuba. ECF No.
1 at 17. The Court declines to issue such an injunction, on the grounds that it exceeds the
scope of relief available to Petitioner on his habeas petition.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ordered to
immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to the conditions of his preexisting
order of supervision. The Court denies all other relief sought in the Petition.
//
//
//
//
Case 3:26-cv-00112-RSH-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
26-cv-112-RSH-JLB
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 light of this disposition, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s application for a
temporary restraining order.
The hearing currently scheduled for January 22, 2026 is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00112-RSH-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4