Alvaro Matias Grosso v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by a detained non-citizen seeking release, dismissal of removal charges, and expedited processing of a T-Visa application. The court denied the petition without prejudice, finding the requested relief was not cognizable in a district court, and denied the associated motions as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petitioner's requests for dismissal of removal charges and expedited USCIS processing are not cognizable in a district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Jurisdiction over removal orders lies with the courts of appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), and district courts generally lack authority to review discretionary immigration decisions or direct USCIS actions. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to articulate a constitutional basis for immediate release from detention, which is the primary cognizable ground for habeas relief in this context. Therefore, the denial is legally sound based on the record provided. |
Denial of Motion to Stay“DENIES the motion to stay and motion for appointment of counsel as moot” | agree with court Because the underlying petition was denied, the motion to stay proceedings became moot. This is a standard procedural consequence. |
Denial of Motion to Appoint Counsel“DENIES the motion to stay and motion for appointment of counsel as moot” | agree with court Because the underlying petition was denied, the motion for appointment of counsel became moot. This is a standard procedural consequence. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the jurisdictional limits of district courts in immigration habeas cases. It accurately cites Zadvydas v. Davis and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) to establish that the petitioner's requests for dismissal of removal charges and expedited USCIS processing are not within the court's purview. The court also correctly notes the failure to state a constitutional claim for release. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the legal deficiencies in the petition.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALVARO MATIAS GROSSO, Case No.: 25-cv-3593-JES-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 14 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS OF HABEAS CORPUS; ENFORCEMENT, 15 Respondent. (2) DENYING MOTION TO STAY 16 AS MOOT; and 17 (3) DENYING MOTION TO 18 APPOINT COUNSEL AS MOOT 19 20 [ECF Nos. 1-3] 21 22 Before the Court is Petitioner Alvaro Matias Grosso’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 23 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner concurrently 24 filed a motion to stay. ECF No. 2. Petitioner also subsequently filed a motion to appoint 25 counsel. ECF No. 3. After due consideration and for the reasons below, the Court declines 26 to issue an order to show cause and DENIES the petition without prejudice. 27 Petitioner is a native of Italy and is currently being detained at Otay Mesa Detention 28 Center. ECF No. 1 at 1. He is currently in removal proceedings. Id. at 4. He alleges that he 1 is a victim of human trafficking and appears to have a pending T-Visa case in front of U.S. 2 Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Id. at 5-6. In his petition, he seeks (1) 3 immediate release; (2) dismissal of his immigration court charges “due to [his] situation as 4 [a] victim[]”; (3) expedited processing of his USCIS case; and (4) an opportunity to contest 5 his case with USCIS. Id. at 7. 6 Upon consideration of a habeas petition under § 2241, the court shall “award the writ 7 or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, 8 unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled 9 thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. “Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations 10 in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.” 11 Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Hendricks v. 12 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)). 13 Here, Petitioner is not requesting any relief that is cognizable on habeas relief. On 14 habeas, district courts may not review discretionary decisions made by immigration 15 authorities, and may only review immigration-related detentions to determine if they 16 comport with the requirements of the Constitution. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688, 17 (2001). Further, jurisdiction to review any challenges to underlying immigration orders, 18 including removal orders, does not rest with the district court, but with appellate courts. 19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Most of Petitioner’s relief asks the Court to interfere with his 20 underlying and pending immigration proceedings, which the Court cannot do. While 21 Petitioner does make a request for immediate release, he identifies no grounds, 22 constitutional or otherwise, as to why he is entitled to this relief. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice, 2 DENIES the motion to stay and motion for appointment of counsel as moot. The Clerk 3 directed to close the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: January 12, 2026 6 =| we San— 1, 7 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28