Rodolfo Jose Pacheco Sena v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center; Alejandro Mayorkas; and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — He 28 1 was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) when he appeared at a 2 scheduled check-in on October 6, 2025, and has been moved to the Otay Mesa Detention Id.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a noncitizen who was detained after the revocation of his humanitarian parole. The court granted the petition, ordering the petitioner's immediate release subject to prior parole conditions, and denied the motion for immediate release as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus.” | agree with court The court relied on a series of recent, unpublished district court decisions from the same district to establish that a prior grant of humanitarian parole creates a liberty interest requiring procedural due process. Because the respondents conceded the facts were not materially distinguishable from these cases, the court adopted the reasoning that due process requires release. This follows the logic of the cited authorities and the respondents' concession. |
Ordering Immediate Release“Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to any conditions of his prior that existed at the time he was re-detained.” | agree with court The order for release is the direct remedy for the finding that the detention violated procedural due process. The condition that release be subject to prior parole conditions is consistent with the nature of the liberty interest at issue. |
Denying Motion for Immediate Release as Moot“In light of this relief, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion for immediate release.” | agree with court Since the court granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered immediate release, the separate motion for immediate release is no longer necessary and is therefore moot. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound in that it grants the relief requested based on the respondents' concession and a string cite of recent, consistent district court authority. However, it is 'sound with gaps' because it relies entirely on unpublished, non-precedential district court orders rather than citing binding circuit or Supreme Court precedent that establishes the due process right in this specific context (e.g., *Zadvydas v. Davis* or *Demore v. Kim* regarding detention of noncitizens, or specific Ninth Circuit precedent on parole revocation). The court explicitly declines to engage in a full analysis, relying on the 'opposite conclusion' reached in other district cases, which is a weak basis for a published or even unpublished opinion without anchoring it in higher authority.
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 RODOLFO JOSE PACHECO SENA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1943-JES-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING PETITION FOR 14 WARDEN OF OTAY MESA WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; and DETENTION CENTER; ALEJANDRO 15 MAYORKAS; and U.S. IMMIGRATION (2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 16 AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 17 Respondents. 18 [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Rodolfo Jose Pacheco Sena’s (“Petitioner”) Amended 20 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 10. Petitioner 21 also filed a motion for immediate release. ECF No. 2. Pursuant to the Court’s Order to 22 Show Cause (ECF No. 11), Respondents filed a return to the petition, and Petitioner filed 23 a traverse. ECF Nos. 14, 15. 24 Petitioner is a native of Colombia who came to the United States in order to seek 25 asylum. ECF No. 10 at 3. He entered the United States in December 2024 and was granted 26 parole on January 22, 2025. Id.; ECF No. 1-2 at 5-6. After his release, he lived with his 27 sister and husband, and complied with all the conditions of his parole. ECF No. 10 at 3. He 28 1 was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) when he appeared at a 2 scheduled check-in on October 6, 2025, and has been moved to the Otay Mesa Detention 3 Center, where he is still currently being held. Id. 4 In their return, Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner had prior humanitarian 5 parole. ECF No. 14 at 2. Respondents argue that the bond hearing Petitioner has received 6 already is an adequate remedy for any deficiencies that may have occurred in the revocation 7 of Petitioner’s parole, but “acknowledge that this Court, and other Courts in this District, 8 have repeatedly reached the opposite conclusion under similar facts involving DHS’s 9 revocation of a noncitizen’s humanitarian parole.” Id. at 3 (citing multiple cases so 10 holding). As such, Respondents state that “the facts here are not materially distinguishable 11 from those cases for purposes of the Court’s decision” and that they “defer to the Court as 12 to the appropriate relief.” Id. at 3-4. 13 In light of Respondents’ statements, the Court will decline to engage in a full analysis 14 of the claims as well. Petitioner states that he was previously released by the government 15 in January 2025. Many courts, including this one, have repeatedly held that a prior grant 16 of release raises a liberty interest for the petitioner and entitles the petitioner to due process 17 rights under procedural due process. See, e.g., Rivera v. Warden, Otay Mesa Det. Ctr., No. 18 26-CV-375-JES-AHG, 2026 WL 310193, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026); Besalti v. 19 LaRose, No. 26-CV-270-JES-JLB, 2026 WL 242042, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026); 20 Singh v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-0556-JES-VET, 2026 WL 353355, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 21 2026); Ramales v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-501-JES-DEB, 2026 WL 280216, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. 22 Feb. 3, 2026); Minhas v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-492-JES-BLM, 2026 WL 280220, at *2-3 23 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026). Accordingly, the Court adopts its reasoning and finds that due 24 process requires release of Petitioner here. 25 Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. Respondents are 26 ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to any conditions of 27 his prior that existed at the time he was re-detained. The Parties are ORDERED to file a 28 1 || Joint Status Report by June 1, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released. In light 2 of this relief, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the motion for immediate release. 3 The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to CLOSE this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: May 27, 2026 7 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28