Tomas Morales Ajpacaja v. DOE, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Tomas Morales Ajpacaja filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention based on the BIA's revocation of jurisdiction for bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The court ordered the respondents to file a response to the petition by December 17, 2025, finding that the petition raised a cognizable claim with sufficient potential merit to warrant a response.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring respondents to answer the petition for writ of habeas corpus“By December 17, 2025, respondents must answer the petition.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, which requires that the petition be plainly without merit. The court cited Neiss v. Bludworth for the proposition that a petition with any potential merit should not be summarily dismissed. The court then cited multiple recent district court decisions (Mosqueda, Vazquez, Rodriguez, Quispe) that have found similar claims regarding the applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) versus § 1226(a) to have a likelihood of success on the merits. Given this body of recent, consistent district court authority, the court's determination that the petition has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response is well-supported by the record and the law as recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for summary dismissal of a habeas petition and applies it to the facts presented. The court relies on a substantial body of recent, consistent district court authority from multiple jurisdictions, including two within the Ninth Circuit, to support its conclusion that the petition has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Tomas Morales AJPACAJA, Case No.: 25-cv-3436-AGS-DEB 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 DOE, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner Tomas Morales Ajpacaja seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. At this stage, she 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 The petition does not specify when Ajpacaja arrived, nor from where. Ajpacaja, 20 though, “has resided in California for over a decade.” (ECF 1, at 9.) He alleges he was 21 “arrested” on “June 25, 2025,” and is now “detained.” (Id.) On “September 12, 2025,” an 22 immigration judge “granted bond.” (Id.) The government “appealed,” and the “Board of 23 Immigration Appeals” “overturned” the Immigration Judge’s decision, relying on Matter 24 of Yajure Hurtado. (Id. at 2, 7.); 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). In that case, the Board 25 of Immigration Appeals revoked “jurisdiction” for “immigration judge[s]” to “consider the 26 release on bond of any noncitizen who entered without inspection” under § 1225(b)(2)(A). 27 Esquivel-Ipina v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-2672 JLS (BLM), 2025 WL 2998361, *2 (S.D. Cal. 28 Oct. 24, 2025). Petitioner charges that his “detention on this basis violates the plain | || language of the Immigration and Nationality Act” and “is plainly contrary to the statutory 2 || framework and contrary to decades of agency practice.” (ECF 1, at 2—3.) Petitioner alleges 3 || that he is not subject to § 1225(b)(2)(A), because he is “present and residing in the United 4 States.” Ud. at 3.) Rather, petitioner asserts that he should be “subject to... § 1226(a), 5 [which] allows for release on conditional parole or bond.” (/d.) 6 This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Functionally 7 identical cases across the country have been found to have a “likelihood of success on the 8 merits” or have resulted in the writ being issued. See, e.g., Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 5:25- 9 || cv-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) (“[T]he Court 10 || concludes that petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because section 11 1226(a), not section 1225(b)(2), likely governs their detention.”); Vazquez v. Feeley, 12 || No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (same); 13 ||see also Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 14 ||(W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (“Every district court to address this question has concluded 15 ||/that the government’s position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons of statutory 16 |/interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”); Quispe v. 17 || Crawford, No. 1:25-cv-1471-AJT-LRV, 2025 WL 2783799, at *6 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 18 |}2025) (“Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a)’s discretionary framework, not 19 || § 1225(b)’s mandatory detention procedures, as at least thirty federal district courts around 20 || the country, including two in this Circuit, have concluded when faced with habeas petitions 21 || from comparably situated petitioners.”). 22 By December 17, 2025, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by 23 || petitioner must be filed by December 23, 2025. The Court will hold oral arguments on the 24 || petition on January 6, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. 25 ||Dated: December 10, 2025 17 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 28