Yolver Daryane Gomez Mejia v. Director, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et. al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — § 1225, but they “acknowledge t
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Venezuelan national detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center, who argued that ICE violated due process and regulations by revoking his parole without notice or a hearing. The court granted the petition, ordering the immediate release of the petitioner under previous conditions and enjoining the government from re-detaining him without complying with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordering immediate release of the Petitioner.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The government shall immediately release Petitioner under the previously determined conditions.” | agree with court The court found that the Petitioner was denied due process rights, specifically notice and an opportunity to be heard, prior to the revocation of his parole. The Respondents did not dispute that no individualized determination or hearing occurred. Under the cited regulation (8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)) and the precedent of Noori v. LaRose, the failure to provide these procedural protections renders the detention unlawful. Therefore, the grant of the writ and order for release follows logically from the established facts and applicable law. |
Enjoining the government from re-detaining the Petitioner without complying with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process.“The government is enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner without complying with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process.” | agree with court This injunctive relief is a standard component of a habeas corpus grant to prevent the government from simply re-imposing the unlawful detention. It directly addresses the specific constitutional and regulatory violations found by the court. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the relevant regulatory requirement for notice and the due process rights associated with revoking parole. It relies on a recent, persuasive district court decision (Noori) that aligns with the Ninth Circuit's general framework for due process in this context. The Respondents' concession that the court's prior decisions control and their lack of opposition to the petition strengthen the court's finding that the detention was unlawful. The order does not skip any critical arguments given the stipulated facts regarding the lack of notice/hearing.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YOLVER DARYANE GOMEZ MEJIA, Case No.: 26-cv-2285-BJC-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 v. 14 DIRECTOR, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et. al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 On April 9, 2026, Petitioner Yolver Daryane Gomez Mejia, a citizen of Venezuela, 20 filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and a supplement 21 to his petition on April 26, 2026. ECF Nos. 1, 8. He asserts he arrived in the United States 22 on June 16, 2023 to seek asylum through the CBP One App. ECF No. 8 at 3. He further 23 asserts, while headed to work on March 16, 2026, he was arrested by Immigration and 24 Customs Enforcement without explanation. Id. He remains detained at the Otay Mesa 25 Detention Center. Id. He contends Immigration and Customs Enforcement failed to 26 comply with its own regulations and the Administrative Procedures Act when they revoked 27 his parole, and the Due Process Clause required notice and a chance to be heard before 28 parole was revoked. Id. 4-10. 1 Respondents filed a return on May 4, 2026, in which they argue Petitioner is subject 2 ||to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, but they “acknowledge this Court’s prior 3 || decisions will control the result here if the Court adheres to its prior decisions.” ECF No. 4 ||10 at 2-3. Respondent does “not oppose the petition and defers to the Court on the 5 || appropriate relief.” Jd. at 3. Petitioner filed a traverse on May 4, 2026. ECF No. 11. He 6 || contends the proper relief is immediate release. /d. at 2. 7 Under applicable regulations, parole! is “terminated upon written notice to the 8 || [noncitizen].” 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2). Additionally, Petitioner was entitled to due process, 9 || including written notice, the reasons for the termination, and an opportunity to contest the 10 || determination, prior to termination of his release. Noori v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-1824-GPC- 11 ||MSB, 2025 WL 2800149, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025). Petitioner contends, and 12 || Respondents do not dispute, that Petitioner was provided no individualized determination, 13 |}and no opportunity to be heard before he was detained. The Court finds Petitioner’s 14 || revocation of his release and detention violated his due process rights. 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The 16 |}government shall immediately release Petitioner under the previously determined 17 ||conditions. The government is enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner without complying 18 || with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process. The Clerk of Court shall close this matter. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: May 22, 2026 21 23 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 24 United States District Judge 25 26 |} 27 ||) Generally, “release on recognizance” during immigration proceedings is “conditional parole.” Ortega- 8 Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 2007); JS.H.M v. Wofford, No. 25-CV-01309 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2938808, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025).