Rogelio TORRES VELASQUEZ v. Kristi NOEM, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Rogelio Torres Velasquez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention as categorically ineligible for bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) based on the BIA decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado. The court ordered the respondents to file a response to the petition by November 26, 2025, finding the claim sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring respondents to answer the petition for a writ of habeas corpus“By November 26, 2025, respondents must answer the petition.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (applied by analogy to § 2241 cases), which permits dismissal only if the petition is plainly not entitled to relief. The court cited Neiss v. Bludworth for the proposition that a petition with any potential merit is not frivolous. The court then cited multiple recent district court decisions (Mosqueda, Vazquez, Rodriguez, Quispe) finding that similar claims challenging the application of § 1225(b) to interior apprehensions have a likelihood of success on the merits. Given this consistent recent district court authority and the specific factual allegations, the finding that the claim has potential merit is supported by the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural standard for summary dismissal of a habeas petition and applies it to the facts. It relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Neiss) for the standard and persuasive district court authority (Mosqueda, Vazquez, Rodriguez, Quispe) to demonstrate that the specific legal claim (that § 1226(a) governs rather than § 1225(b) for interior apprehensions) has potential merit. The reasoning is sufficient to support the order requiring a response.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Rogelio TORRES VELASQUEZ, Case No.: 25-cv-3046-AGS-DEB 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Kristi NOEM, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner Rogelio Torres Velasquez seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim 11 that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 12 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it 13 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 14 to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting use of those Rules to any “habeas corpus petition”). 15 In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are 16 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 Torres Velasquez alleges that he’s been in immigration custody since “August 26, 20 2025.” (ECF 1, at 2.) He claims to be subject to mandatory detention and “categorically 21 ineligible for a bond hearing under” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and he has thus been denied bond 22 during the pendency of removal proceedings. (ECF 1, at 2, 10.) This is because a Board of 23 Immigration Appeals’ opinion in “Matter of Yajure Hurtado” held that “noncitizens who 24 entered without inspection and were later apprehended in the interior are categorically 25 ineligible for bond hearings.” (ECF 1, at 13.) Petitioner charges that detention based on 26 Yajure Hurtado “violates the plain text of the INA, decades of longstanding agency 27 practice, and the constitutional guarantees of Due Process.” (Id. at 2.) 28 1 This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Functionally 2 ||identical cases across the country have been found to have a “likelihood of success on the 3 ||merits” or have resulted in the writ being issued. See, e.g., Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 5:25- 4 || cv-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) (“[T]he Court 5 || concludes that petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because section 6 || 1226(a), not section 1225(b)(2), likely governs their detention.”); Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 7 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (same); 8 ||see also Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 9 ||(W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (“Every district court to address this question has concluded 10 |/that the government’s position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons of statutory 11 ||interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”); Quispe v. 12 || Crawford, No. 1:25-cv-1471-AJT-LRV, 2025 WL 2783799, at *6 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 13 |}2025) (“Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a)’s discretionary framework, not 14 || § 1225(b)’s mandatory detention procedures, as at least thirty federal district courts around 15 || the country, including two in this Circuit, have concluded when faced with habeas petitions 16 || from comparably situated petitioners.”). 17 By November 26, 2025, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by 18 || petitioner must be filed by December 10, 2025. The Court will hold oral arguments on the 19 || petition on December 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 20 || Dated: November 12, 2025 2 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28