Ana Barba Hinojosa v. Christopher LaRose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Ana Barba Hinojosa filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court ordered the respondent to file a response by December 30, 2025, finding that the petition is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring response to habeas petition“By December 30, 2025, respondent must answer the petition.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 4, as applied to § 2241 petitions via Rule 1(b). The court cited Neiss v. Bludworth for the proposition that a petition with 'any potential merit' should not be summarily dismissed. The court supported this finding by citing multiple recent district court decisions (Barco Mercado, Mosqueda, Vazquez, Rodriguez) that found similar claims regarding the misclassification of long-term residents under § 1225(b)(2) to have a likelihood of success on the merits. Given the recitation of these authorities and the specific facts of the petitioner's entry in 1985, the decision to require a response follows from the law and the record recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions and applies it to the specific facts presented. The court relies on a substantial body of recent, persuasive district court authority from multiple jurisdictions to support its conclusion that the petition has potential merit. There are no apparent gaps in the reasoning for this specific procedural step (requiring a response).
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Ana BARBA HINOJOSA, Case No.: 25-cv-3701-AGS-KSC 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Christopher LaROSE, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner Ana Barba Hinojosa seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 10 challenging her immigration detention. At this stage, she need only make out a claim that 11 is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 12 in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly 13 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 14 relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to 15 any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary 16 dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 17 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is 18 not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 19 In 1985, when she was “approximately eleven” years old, “Mexican national” Barba 20 Hinojosa entered the United States without inspection. (ECF 1, at 2, 6.) Forty years later, 21 on “November 12, 2025,” Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers “arrested” her 22 “at her residence in the interior of the United States.” (Id. at 6.) The government is now 23 “subject[ing]” her “to detention under [8 U.S.C.] § 1225(b)(2),” which applies to applicants 24 for admission and requires mandatory detention. (Id. at 5.) She asserts that her case is 25 instead governed by “8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)”—which “authorizes release on bond or 26 conditional parole”—because she crossed into the United States years ago and thus is not 27 an “applicant for admission.” (Id. at 8.) This statutory misclassification, she argues, renders 28 her detention unlawful and in violation of “the Due Process Clause.” (Id.) 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., Barco Mercado vy. Francis, 4 ||___~F. Supp. 3d.__, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 5 2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362” opinions to address this issue, the petitioners 6 || “prevailed, either on a preliminary or final basis,” and these cases were “decided by over 7 || 160 different judges sitting in about fifty different courts”); Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 5:25- 8 cv-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) (“[P]etitioners 9 |lare likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because section 1226(a), not section 10 |} 1225(b)(2), likely governs their detention.”); Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB- 11 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (same); Rodriguez v. Bostock, 12 || No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (“[T]he 13 |}government’s position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons of statutory 14 interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”). 15 By December 30, 2025, respondent must answer the petition. Any reply by 16 || petitioner must be filed by January 5, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on the 17 || petition on January 6, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. 18 Dated: December 23, 2025 0 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28