Idris Demirtas v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Idris Demirtas filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his immigration detention following an ICE call-in interview. The court ordered the respondents to file a response by December 3, 2025, and scheduled oral arguments for December 11, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring response to habeas petition“By December 3, 2025, respondents must answer the petition.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the screening standard for habeas petitions, which requires only that the claim be sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. The order cites Neiss v. Bludworth for the proposition that a petition with 'any potential merit' should not be summarily dismissed. The court found that Demirtas's claim—that he was detained immediately after appearing for an ICE interview despite having a work permit and pending residency application—has potential merit, supported by analogous cases. This is a procedural order to advance the case to the merits phase, which is appropriate given the facts recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the low threshold for surviving habeas screening (cognizability rather than likelihood of success) and applies the correct standard from Neiss v. Bludworth. The court supports its finding of potential merit by citing three recent, analogous district court decisions involving detention following ICE call-ins or check-ins. The order does not need to resolve the merits at this stage, only to determine if a response is warranted, which it does appropriately.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Idris DEMIRTAS, Case No.: 25-cv-3295-AGS-BJW 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Christopher J. LAROSE, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner challenges his immigration detention. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus 10 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 11 HABEAS SCREENING 12 Petitioner Idris Demirtas need only make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable 13 to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 14 District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the 15 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) 16 (permitting use of those Rules to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant 17 federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss 18 v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition 19 has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary 20 dismissal[.]” Id. 21 Demirtas, a “citizen of Turkey,” “fled” “Turkey due to threats and physical violence 22 against him for not being a member of the Muslim faith.” (ECF 1, at 3.) Demirtas “entered 23 the United States on December 6, 2022” to “seek asylum” and “was released on parole on 24 December 15, 2022.” (Id. at 2–3.) He “was given a five[-]year work permit dated 25 December 22, 2022.” (Id. at 3.) In “May 2025,” Demirtas “received a letter dismissing his 26 asylum” “without an interview.” (Id. at 6.) Demirtas then began “the process for obtaining 27 legal residency,” because he is married to a U.S. citizen. On “November 19, 2025,” 28 Demirtas’s immigration attorney received “a call-in letter by ICE” for Demirtas to “appear” 1 || for an “interview” “less than 16 hours later.” (/d.) When he “appeared at the interview,” 2 ||Demirtas “was then immediately taken into custody unlawfully without notice and an 3 || opportunity to be heard.” Ud.) 4 This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Similar cases 5 across California have been found to have a “likelihood of success on the merits” or have 6 || resulted in the writ being issued. See, e.g., Federico Navarro Perez v. Christopher LaRose, 7 al., No. 3:25-cv-02620-RBM-JLB, 2025 WL 3171742, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025) 8 || (granting habeas petition for “Guatemalan national” who received “a mass email . . . stating 9 || that his parole would be terminated,” attended a “required immigration court hearing,” and 10 || was “detained by ... ICE”); Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1089, 1091, 1096 (E.D. 11 2025) (granting habeas and preliminary injunction for “noncitizen” who had been 12 || paroled and was then “taken into custody during a standard check-in at [an] ICE office’’); 13 || Salazar v. Casey, No. 3:25-cv-2784-JLS-VET, 2025 WL 3063629, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14 |/3, 2025) (granting habeas for a “national of Venezuela” who, when “responding to a ‘call- 15 letter’ from ICE” “was arrested” and re-detained’”’). 16 CONCLUSION 17 By December 3, 2025, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by 18 || petitioner must be filed by December 8, 2025. The Court will hold oral arguments on the 19 || petition on December 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 20 || Dated: November 28, 2025 2 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28