Anselmo GARCIA-DONIS v. Kristi NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela BONDI, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; Todd LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Daniel BRIGHTMAN, Director, San Diego Field Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen challenging his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. The court granted the petition, issued the writ, enjoined detention under § 1225, and ordered an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted on the first claim (detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225).“The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED on the first claim and the writ is ISSUED.” | agree with court The court relies on its prior decision in Amaya v. Noem, 2025 WL 3182998 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025), to conclude that a long-term resident apprehended in the interior is not an 'applicant for admission' and thus cannot be held in mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) without a bond hearing. This aligns with the Supreme Court's holding in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 353 (2018), which requires individualized bond hearings for long-term detainees under § 1225(b)(2). The court's adoption of Amaya's reasoning is consistent with established law. |
Respondents enjoined from detaining Garcia-Donis under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and ordered to provide an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days.“The Respondents are enjoined from detaining Garcia-Donis under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. The Respondents must also provide him with an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of the entry of this order.” | agree with court The order to provide a bond hearing under § 1226(a) is a standard remedy in this circuit for detainees who are not properly classified as 'applicants for admission' under § 1225. The ten-day deadline is a reasonable procedural directive to ensure prompt compliance. |
Remaining claims (ICE regulations, APA, Due Process) dismissed without prejudice as moot.“The remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice as moot.” | agree with court Because the court granted relief on the primary statutory claim (§ 1225), the alternative legal theories supporting the same relief (regulations, APA, Due Process) become moot. Dismissing them without prejudice is appropriate to preserve the petitioner's rights if the detention continues or recurs. |
Motion for temporary restraining order denied as moot.“Garcia-Donis’s motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court Since the court granted the underlying petition and issued the writ, the need for a temporary restraining order pending decision is eliminated. Denial as moot is procedurally correct. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is 'sound with gaps.' It reaches a defensible result by adopting the reasoning of Amaya v. Noem, which is consistent with Jennings v. Rodriguez. However, it fails to explicitly cite Jennings v. Rodriguez, the controlling Supreme Court precedent on the due process implications of long-term detention under § 1225(b)(2). It also does not explicitly state the standard of review for the habeas petition, though the outcome is legally sound based on the cited district court precedent and statutory interpretation.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Anselmo GARCIA-DONIS, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03281-BTM-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 15 Kristi NOEM, Secretary, U.S. [ECF NO. 1] Department of Homeland Security; 16 Pamela BONDI, Attorney General, U.S. 17 Department of Justice; Todd LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and 18 Customs Enforcement; Daniel 19 BRIGHTMAN, Director, San Diego Field Office, Immigration and Customs 20 Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal 21 Operations; Christopher J. LAROSE, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; 22 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 23 SECURITY; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; and 24 EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR 25 IMMIGRATION REVIEW, 26 Respondents. 27 28 1 Pending before the Court is Anselmo Garcia-Donis’s petition for a writ of habeas 2 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS 3 the petition and ISSUES the writ. 4 I. BACKGROUND 5 Anselmo Garcia-Donis was arrested on November 12, 2025, and placed in removal 6 proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (See ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”), 12–13; ECF No. 7 7, 2.) The Respondents allege that Garcia-Donis entered the United States fifteen years 8 ago without admission or parole. (Id. at 1.) They had placed Garcia-Donis in removal 9 proceedings in 2023 and closed the proceedings in 2024. (Id. at 12.) But on November 10 12, the Respondents redetained Garcia-Donis and reopened removal proceedings against 11 him. 12 Garcia-Donis then requested a bond determination hearing before an immigration 13 judge. (Id. at 12–13.) On November 24, 2025, an immigration judge found that they lacked 14 jurisdiction over his case and denied the request. (Id.) See Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 15 I&N Dec. 216, 228 (B.I.A. 2025). That same day, Garcia-Donis petitioned the Court for a 16 writ of habeas corpus on the claims that his detention violates (1) 8 U.S.C. § 1226, (2) 17 Immigration and Customs Enforcement regulations, (3) the Administrative Procedure Act, 18 and (4) the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Pet., 13–15.) He also moved the 19 Court for a temporary restraining order pending a decision on his petition. Lastly, Garcia- 20 Donis requested costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 21 U.S.C. § 2412, and “any other basis justified under law.” (Pet., 16.) 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 The facts and legal arguments are similar to those presented in the Court’s recent 24 decision, Amaya v. Noem, 25-cv-02892-BTM-DEB, 2025 WL 3182998 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 25 13, 2025). The Court adopts Amaya’s reasoning and applies it to this case. 26 The Court finds that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because Garcia-Donis 27 challenges the legality of his detention under Section 1225, not a discretionary decision by 28 the Attorney General. The Respondents waived their claim that Garcia-Donis failed to 1 exhaust his administrative remedies by addressing it in a footnote. In any event, Petitioner 2 tried to exhaust his administrative remedies by seeking a bond hearing which was denied. 3 Further exhaustion in light of the BIA’s decision in Hurtado would be futile. On the merits, 4 Garcia-Donis is entitled to the writ of habeas corpus for the same reasons discussed in 5 Amaya: 6 The facts alleged are undisputed. Petitioner is a long-term resident of the United States. He was apprehended in the interior of the United States, not 7 near the border or a port of entry. He is not an applicant for admission. He 8 may not be denied a bond hearing based on Respondents' contention that his case falls within Section 1225. 9 10 2025 WL 3182998, at *2. 11 III. CONCLUSION 12 The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED on the first claim and the writ 13 is ISSUED. The Respondents are enjoined from detaining Garcia-Donis under 8 U.S.C. 14 § 1225. The Respondents must also provide him with an individualized bond hearing 15 before a neutral immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of the 16 entry of this order. The Respondents shall not deny his bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. 17 § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. In the absence of a bond hearing as ordered, 18 the Respondents shall release Garcia-Donis from custody. 19 The remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice as moot. Garcia-Donis’s 20 motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED as moot. The parties shall file a 21 statement as to the satisfaction of the writ by December 16, 2025, at 5 p.m. The Court 22 retains jurisdiction to enforce the writ. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // l The Petitioner may move for an award of fees within thirty (30) days of the entry of 2 ||this Order. The Respondents shall respond within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the 3 ||motion and the Petitioner may reply within seven (7) days of the filing of the opposition. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: December 3, 2025 = 6 Honoré Barry Ted Mice 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4