Diego Alejandro Lara Urriola v. Christopher J. Larose, Senior Warde, Otay Mesa Detention Center; Daniel A. Brightman, San Diego Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcements and Removal Operations
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — ¶ 36.) 8 According to the Petition, the Government initiated removal proceedings against 9 Petitioner on Ja
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Venezuelan national detained by ICE after his release on recognizance was revoked. The court granted the petition and ordered the petitioner's immediate release, finding that the government failed to address the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the legality of his detention.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordering the release of the Petitioner.“Absent any rebuttal from Respondents, the Court grants the Petition, and orders Respondents to release Petitioner forthwith, and subject to the terms of his previous release.” | agree with court The court's decision relies on the procedural default of the respondents, who failed to address the merits of the APA and Due Process claims after acknowledging the court's jurisdiction and the applicability of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). While the court cites recent district court decisions (e.g., Rios v. Noem, Makuey v. Scott) that found similar re-detentions unlawful on the merits, the operative basis for this specific order is the lack of a substantive defense from the government. In federal habeas proceedings, if the government fails to justify the legality of detention, the court is generally required to order release. The court's reliance on the respondents' failure to brief the merits is a standard procedural mechanism for granting relief when the burden of proof for lawful detention is not met. |
Rejecting the Respondents' argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction.“To the extent Respondents maintain the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the claims alleged in this case, the Court rejects that argument, as it has in several previous cases.” | agree with court The court cites a series of recent, unpublished district court orders from the same district (S.D. Cal.) to support its jurisdictional ruling. While these are not binding precedents, they reflect a consistent local interpretation that the court retains jurisdiction over these specific habeas claims despite the government's arguments (likely related to the IIRIRA or similar statutory bars). Given the consistency of these recent decisions in the same district, the court's rejection of the jurisdictional challenge is defensible within the context of the local circuit's current handling of these cases. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound in that it correctly identifies the governing statute (1226(a)) and the failure of the government to meet its burden of proof. However, it relies heavily on a string cite of very recent, unpublished district court orders from various districts (S.D. Cal., W.D. Wash., E.D. Cal., D. Nev., D. Ariz., D. Ore.) to support its substantive due process and APA conclusions. While these cases suggest a trend, they are not binding precedent. The court does not explicitly analyze the specific facts of this petitioner's case against the legal standards for due process or APA violations, but rather grants relief based on the respondents' failure to address the merits. This is a defensible procedural posture, but the substantive legal analysis is thin and relies on the assumption that the government's silence concedes the merits, which is a valid but aggressive interpretation of the burden of proof in this specific context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incomplete record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 25cv3556 DMS MMP DIEGO ALEJANDRO LARA 12 URRIOLA, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 Petitioner, 14 v. 15 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior 16 Warde, Otay Mesa Detention Center; DANIEL A. BRIGHTMAN, San Diego 17 Field Office Director, Immigration and 18 Customs Enforcements and Removal Operations (“ICE/ERO”); TODD M. 19 LYONS, Acting Director of Immigration 20 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements; 21 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the 22 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); U.S. Department of Homeland 23 Security; and PAMELA BONDI, Attorney 24 General of the United States. 25 Respondents. 26 This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 27 Order to Show Cause Within Three Days. As set out in the Petition, Petitioner is a citizen 28 and national of Venezuela. On December 23, 2023, he entered the United States near Eagle 1 Pass, Texas. After crossing the border Petitioner was apprehended by border patrol agents 2 and taken into custody. On December 28, 2023, Petitioner was released on his own 3 recognizance with a Notice to Appear before an immigration judge on February 27, 2024. 4 Thereafter, Petitioner was monitored through the Intensive Supervision Appearance 5 Program (“ISAP”), and he “complied with every request, demand and requirement imposed 6 by Respondents, in addition to complying with all the court and legal timelines in pursuing 7 immigration relief.” (Pet. ¶ 36.) 8 According to the Petition, the Government initiated removal proceedings against 9 Petitioner on January 31, 2024. On December 4, 2024, Petitioner applied for asylum. On 10 June 24, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition in San Diego Superior Court seeking appointment 11 of a guardian and Special Immigrant Juvenile Findings. (Id. ¶ 35.) On July 1, 2025, 12 Petitioner appeared for a hearing before an immigration judge during which Respondents 13 moved to dismiss Petitioner’s case so they could place him in expedited removal 14 proceedings. The immigration judge denied that motion, but Respondents nevertheless 15 took Petitioner into custody. He has been in custody since that time and is currently being 16 detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center. After Petitioner was taken into custody, the state 17 court issued its Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS”) findings. On July 31, 2025, 18 Petitioner filed his petition for SIJS with Respondents. 19 On December 12, 2025, Petitioner filed the present case seeking his release from 20 custody. He alleges three claims for relief: (1) that Respondents’ revocation of his release 21 without a change in circumstances was an abuse of discretion under the Administrative 22 Procedures Act (“APA”), (2) that the revocation of his parole was pursuant to a policy as 23 opposed to an exercise of individual discretion in violation of the APA, and (3) that the 24 revocation of his release violated his procedural due process rights because it was arbitrary 25 and failed to consider whether he posed a safety risk or risk of flight and because there was 26 no change in circumstances justifying his re-detention. In response to the Petition, 27 Respondents argue the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims and 28 Petitioner is lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Respondents did not 1 address the merits of Petitioner’s claims under the APA or the Fifth Amendment. In their 2 supplemental response, Respondents acknowledge Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 3 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and that he is therefore entitled to a bond hearing pursuant to a series of 4 decisions by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 5 Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, Case No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM. Petitioner filed a 6 traverse disputing Respondents’ jurisdiction argument and asserting he is properly detained 7 under section 1226(b). Petitioner also maintains his detention is unlawful, and the 8 appropriate remedy in this case is release as opposed to a bond hearing. 9 To the extent Respondents maintain the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the 10 claims alleged in this case, the Court rejects that argument, as it has in several previous 11 cases. See, e.g., Arellano v. LaRose, No. 3:25-cv-03316-DMS-AHG, ECF No. 6; Fanfan 12 v. Noem, No. 25cv3291 DMS (BJW), ECF No. 13, Medina-Ortiz v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2819- 13 DMS-MMP, ECF No. 7; Vasquez Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02180-DMS-MMP, 2025 14 WL 2549431, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025). There is also no longer a dispute that 15 Petitioner’s re-detention is governed by section 1226(a), not section 1225(b)(2)(A). This 16 leaves only the merits of Petitioner’s claims, which Respondents failed to address. Absent 17 any rebuttal from Respondents, the Court grants the Petition, and orders Respondents to 18 release Petitioner forthwith, and subject to the terms of his previous release. See N-E-M- 19 B v. Wamsley, No. 3:25-cv-989-SI, 2025 WL 3527111, at *7-8 (D. Ore. Dec. 9, 2025) 20 (granting petition and ordering petitioner’s release where respondents failed to contest 21 merits); F.B. v. Noem, No. CV-25-04271-PHX-JJT (JZB), 2025 WL 3628652, at *1-2 (D. 22 Ariz. Dec. 4, 2025) (similar). See also Rios v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2866-JES-VET, 2025 WL 23 3141207, at *2-4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025) (granting petition on grounds respondents 24 violated the APA and due process in re-detaining petitioner); Makuey v. Scott, No. 2:25- 25 cv-02135-DGE-BAT, 2025 WL 3640900, at *4-7 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 16, 2025) (granting 26 petition on ground petitioner’s re-detention violated due process); Singh v. Andrews, No. 27 1:25-cv-01438-EPG-HC, 2025 WL 3563221, at *4-8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2025) (same); 28 Faizyan v. Casey, No. 3:25-cv-02884-RBM-JLB, 2025 WL 3208844, at *6-8 (S.D. Cal. 1 || Nov. 17, 2025) (same); Rodriguez Cabrera v. Mattos, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2025 WL 2 3072687 (D. Nev. Nov. 3, 2025) (same); E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F.Supp.3d 1316, 1320- 3 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (same). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ||Dated: December 30, 2025 6 nm bby 4 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 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