Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN HUMBERTO ORTIZ Case No.: 3:26-cv-02505-BTM-MSB PERAZA, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Petitioner, 13 DENYING IN PART PETITION FOR v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 15 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, 16 Department of Homeland Security; 17 TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 18 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney 19 General, Department of Justice; and WARDEN, Imperial Regional Detention 20 Facility; 21 Respondents. 22 23 24 Pending before the Court is Jonathan Humberto Ortiz Peraza’s petition for a writ of 25 habeas corpus. The Petitioner claims that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 26 § 1226. (ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”), ¶ 3.) He also requests that the Court order his release. (Id. 27 at 7.) The Respondents concede that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 28 Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), stayed 1 by Maldonado Bautista v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2 2026). The Respondents also, based on prior decisions in the Southern District of 3 California, “do not oppose an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held 4 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (ECF No. 5, at 1.) See, e.g., Amaya v. Noem, No. 25-cv- 5 02892, 2025 WL 3182998 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025). 6 The Petitioner does not argue why he is entitled to release. Although he states that 7 he was released on his own recognizance from immigration custody, he does not provide 8 facts on when he was released. Nor does he state when he entered the country. Rather, the 9 petition implies that the Petitioner entered the country without inspection. (Pet., ¶ 3 10 (“[Section] 1225(b)(2)(A) does not govern individuals—such as Petitioner—who are 11 charged with having entered the United States without inspection.” (emphasis added)).) 12 This makes it unlikely that the Petitioner was paroled into the country and held a liberty 13 interest in remaining on parole. Cf. Tulyakov v. LaRose, No. 26-cv-01695, 2026 WL 14 981218 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2026) (finding a liberty interest for a noncitizen paroled into he 15 country). It is “[a]fter immigration officials inspect a noncitizen1 at the border” that “they 16 may release the noncitizen into the country.” Zamudio Rangel v. LaRose, No. 26-cv- 17 01505, 2026 WL 1075244, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2026). Because the Petitioner has not 18 shown that he is entitled to release, the remedy of release is denied without prejudice. See 19 Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 969 n.16 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In . . . federal habeas 20 proceedings, it is the petitioner who bears the burden of proving his case.”). 21 Because the Respondents do not oppose a bond hearing, the Court grants the 22 Petitioner’s request for a bond hearing. On or before June 18, 2026, unless the Petitioner 23 requests a continuance, the Respondents are ordered to grant the Petitioner an 24 individualized bond hearing before a fair, neutral, and open-minded immigration judge 25 (“IJ”). The IJ shall consider: 26 27 1 This order uses the term “noncitizen” as equivalent to the statutory term “alien.” 8 U.S.C. 28 l where the Petitioner will reside, who any surety may be, the appropriateness of non-financial conditions, the nine factors for an IJ to consider in an individualized bond hearing as set forth in Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775 3 (9th Cir. 2024): (1) whether the alien has a fixed address in the United States; 4 (2) the alien’s length of residence in the United States; (3) the alien’s family ties in the United States, and whether they may entitle the alien to reside 5 permanently in the United States in the future; (4) the alien’s employment 6 history; (5) the alien’s record of appearance in court; (6) the alien’s criminal record, including the extensiveness of criminal activity, the recency of such 7 activity, and the seriousness of the offenses; (7) the alien’s history of g immigration violations; (8) any attempts by the alien to flee prosecution or otherwise escape from authorities; and (9) the alien’s manner of entry to the 9 United States, and any other factors the IJ deems relevant in this particular 10 case. See also Matter of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006). 11 || Seged v. LaRose, No. 26-cv-02564, 2026 WL 1480801, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2026). 12 || The IJ must determine whether the Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk 13 || for which there are no conditions available that will deter such risk. If the IJ denies bond, 14 || the judge must make specific findings as to why the Petitioner is a danger to the community 15 a flight risk, and the Government must make the audio of the hearing available to the 16 || Petitioner’s counsel. 17 In conclusion, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED IN PART. 18 || The Respondents are ordered to grant Perez an individualized bond hearing before a fair, 19 |/neutral, and open-minded IJ in accordance with the requirements ordered above. The 20 remedy of release without a bond hearing is DENIED without prejudice. The parties shall 21 || file a joint status report on the result of the bond hearing within forty-eight (48) hours of 22 bond hearing. If the Respondents fail to comply with this writ, the Petitioner can apply 23 ||to this Court for relief. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the writ. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: June 4, 2026 ‘ ’ on 0% aut Tid. Honorable Barry Ted Mosko 27 United States District Judge 28