Miguel v. LaRose
Rosaura Pablo Miguel v. Christopher Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Rosaura Pablo Miguel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her immigration detention as mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) pursuant to a new DHS policy. The court ordered the respondent to file an answer to the petition by October 28, 2025, finding the claim sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring respondent to answer the petition for writ of habeas corpus“By October 28, 2025, respondent must answer the petition.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, which requires that the petition be 'clearly not cognizable' or 'frivolous or incredible.' The court found that the petitioner's claim, challenging the application of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to individuals present in the U.S. under a new DHS policy, has 'sufficient potential merit' to survive summary dismissal. This determination is supported by the court's citation to multiple recent district court decisions within and outside the Ninth Circuit that have found similar claims likely to succeed on the merits, indicating that the legal question is currently unsettled and actively litigated. Therefore, the decision to require a response rather than summarily dismiss the petition follows from the cited authorities and the recited facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural standard for summary dismissal of a § 2241 habeas petition and applies it to the specific legal claim raised. It supports its conclusion that the claim has potential merit by citing a substantial number of recent, analogous district court decisions that have reached the same substantive legal conclusion regarding the applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) versus § 1226(a). The reasoning is direct and the authorities cited are highly relevant and recent, making the decision to require a response well-supported.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Rosaura PABLO MIGUEL, Case No.: 25-cv-2644-AGS-MSB 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Christopher LAROSE, et al., 7 Respondent. 8 9 Petitioner Rosaura Pablo Miguel seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2241 challenging her immigration detention. At this stage, she need only make out a 11 claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 12 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if 13 it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 14 entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting use of those Rules to any “habeas corpus 15 petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims 16 that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) 17 (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or 18 incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 19 Petitioner claims to have been in immigration custody since “August 10, 2025.” 20 (ECF 1, at 2.) She alleges that she has been “subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 21 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A),” and thus denied bond during the pendency of removal 22 proceedings. (ECF 1, at 2) This is due to a “new DHS policy issued on July 8, 2025, 23 instructing all Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees to consider anyone 24 inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)—i.e., present without admission—to be an 25 ‘applicant for admission’ under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and therefore subject to 26 mandatory detention during the removal hearing process.” (ECF 1, at 3 (footnote omitted).) 27 Despite originally succeeding at a bond hearing, the immigration judge allegedly changed 28 course thereafter and determined that he “lacked jurisdiction to redetermine Respondent’s | custody” “in light of’ the Board of Immigration Appeals’ opinion in “Matter of Yajure 2 || Hurtado.” (Id. at 4.) She charges that Yajure Hurtado and the “new legal interpretation of 3 INA is plainly contrary to the statutory framework and contrary to decades of agency 4 ||practice applying § 1226(a) to people like Petitioner who are present within the 5 || United States.” Ud. at 5.) 6 This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. The Court notes 7 || functionally identical ones across the country have been found to have a “likelihood of 8 ||success on the merits” or have resulted in the writ being issued. See, e.g., Mosqueda v. 9 || Noem, No. 5:25-CV-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) 10 (‘T]he Court concludes that petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims 11 || because section 1226(a), not section 1225(b)(2), likely governs their detention.”); Vazquez 12 ||v. Feeley, No. 2:25-CV-01542-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 13 |}2025) (same); see also Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-CV-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 14 2782499, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (“Every district court to address this question 15 concluded that the government’s position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons 16 statutory interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”); Luna 17 || Quispe v. Crawford, No. 1:25-CV-1471-AJT-LRV, 2025 WL 2783799, at *6 (E.D. Va. 18 ||Sept. 29, 2025) (‘“Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a)’s discretionary 19 || framework, not § 1225(b)’s mandatory detention procedures, as at least thirty federal 20 || district courts around the country, including two in this Circuit, have concluded when faced 21 || with habeas petitions from comparably situated petitioners.”’). 22 By October 28, 2025, respondent must answer the petition. Petitioner’s reply must 23 filed by November 18, 2025. 24 || Dated: October 7, 2025 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 27 28