Gozen v. Noem et al

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
BERKEN GOZEN,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;
Security; TODD LYONS, Acting Director
of ICE; GREGORY J.
ARCHAMBEAULT, ICE Enforcement
Removal Operations; and CHRISTOPHER
J. LAROSE, Warden of Otay Mesa
Detention Center, in their official
capacities,
Respondents.
No. 3:26-cv-00458-BTM-MSB
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Case 3:26-cv-00458-BTM-MSB Document 9 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
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
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Berken Gozen’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. 	Petitioner was served on November 14, 2023, with a Notice to Appear.
Petitioner was charged as removable under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act. 	Petitioner was released under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. 	Petitioner was
issued a work permit that expires on March 9, 2030. 	Petitioner applied for asylum and
withholding of removal. Petitioner has been living in the United States without incident.
Petitioner was re-detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
This Court has jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s challenge to his custody. Nielsen
v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 401-02 (2019) (maintaining jurisdiction on appeal following
district court decisions to review legal challenge to decision to deny bond hearings). This
Court has jurisdiction because Petitioner is not challenging his removal, the execution of
a removal order, or a discretionary decision by the Attorney General. 	See Arce v. United
States, 899 F.3d 796, 800 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e have limited [1252(g)]’s jurisdiction-
stripping power to actions challenging the Attorney General’s discretionary decisions to
initiate proceedings, adjudicate cases, and execute removal orders.”).
Due process for the revocation of release requires (1) a decision by an appropriate
official on whether the purpose of release has been served; (2) written notice of the
reasons for the revocation; and (3) a fair opportunity to rebut the reasons given for the
revocation. 	See Noori v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-1824, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194953, *29
(S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025) (“Petitioner was entitled to due process in his parole revocation.
Particularly, he was entitled to both notification of revocation and the reasoning for
revocation, if not also an opportunity to be heard and contest the determination.”); Y-Z-L-
H v. Bostock, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1146 (D. Or. 2025) (“[A]s a noncitizen with
connections in the United States who is no longer at the threshold of initial entry,
Petitioner is entitled to due process rights.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)); see
also 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e) (setting forth requirements for parole revocation).
The Government does not contend that any changed circumstances warranted
Petitioner’s re-detention. 	The Government does not claim that Petitioner is a flight risk
Case 3:26-cv-00458-BTM-MSB Document 9 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
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
or a danger to the community. 	The Respondents have not contested the facts alleged in
the Petition. 	The Respondents have not alleged that they have provided Petitioner with
the due process required for the revocation of their previous release of Petitioner. Rather,
they agree that he is entitled to a bond hearing. 	But they have alleged no changed
circumstances, risk of flight or dangerousness on the part of the Petitioner. 	Therefore, a
bond hearing would be futile and would just result in the prolonged unlawful detention of
the Petitioner. 	Thus, Petitioner’s re-detention was unlawful. 	Petitioner is entitled to
immediate release under the previous conditions imposed.
For the reasons stated, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted.
Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody under the previous
conditions imposed. 	Respondents shall provide a status report confirming Petitioner’s
release no later than February 12, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00458-BTM-MSB Document 9 Filed 02/11/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3