Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREN PASTOR-GALEANA, Case No.: 26-cv-3249-JES-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; 15 [ECF No. 1] PATRICK DIVVER, Field Office 16 Director, San Diego Office of Detention and Removal, U.S. Immigration and 17 Customs Enforcement; TODD M. 18 LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 19 U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 20 and MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 21 Respondents. 22 23 24 Before the Court is Petitioner Karen Pastor-Galeana’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 25 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). ECF No. 1, (“Pet.”). 26 Pursuant to the Court's Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 3, Respondents (the "Government") 27 filed the Return. ECF No. 6, (“Ret.”). Petitioner filed a Traverse. ECF No. 7. For the 28 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner is a 26-year-old native and citizen of Mexico who fled to the United States 3 after suffering domestic violence and death threats from her former partner and his family. 4 Pet. ¶ 1. She entered the United States on or about February 28, 2023, near Nogales, 5 Arizona, and was immediately apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Id. 6 ¶¶ 2, 13. On March 1, 2023, she was issued a Notice to Appear charging her as an alien 7 present in the United States without admission or parole under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). Id. 8 ¶ 23; Id. at 23-25 (“NTA”). The NTA noted that an asylum officer had found a credible 9 fear of persecution. See NTA. On March 2, 2023, immigration authorities released 10 Petitioner on an Order of Release on Recognizance. Pet. ¶¶ 2, 13; id. at 19. 11 For more than three years, Petitioner complied fully with all conditions of her 12 release, appeared at all scheduled immigration proceedings, has no criminal history, and 13 built a life in the United States. Id. ¶ 3. She is the primary caregiver of her two daughters, 14 and Samantha P., a United States citizen minor. Id. ¶¶ 3, 13. Petitioner’s asylum 15 proceedings are currently pending. Id. ¶¶ 22–23. 16 In April 2026, Respondents arrested and detained Petitioner, without providing 17 written notice of any parole revocation and without affording her any opportunity to be 18 heard. Pet. ¶¶ 26, 31. While detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, 19 California, Petitioner sought a custody redetermination before an immigration judge (“IJ”), 20 on May 28, 2026. ECF No. 4. The IJ denied her request, finding Petitioner subject to 21 mandatory detention under INA § 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) and citing Matter of Yajure 22 Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), and the Ninth Circuit’s stay of Maldonado Bautista 23 v. DHS, No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). Id. Petitioner reserved her appeal of that 24 ruling, with an appeal deadline of June 29, 2026. Id. No administrative remedy for release, 25 therefore, remains available to Petitioner. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 3 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 4 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 5 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 6 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of 7 habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the 8 Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas 9 corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in 10 that context that its protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 11 (2001). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within the purview 12 of a district court's habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see 13 also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 In its Return, the Government concedes that Petitioner was previously released from 16 immigration custody on conditional parole but maintains she is subject to mandatory 17 detention under 8 U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1225(b)(2). Ret. at 2. The Government does not, 18 however, dispute the facts underlying the Petition, does not contest that prior decisions in 19 this district are controlling, and expressly states that it "does not oppose the petition." Id. 20 at 3. The Traverse further demonstrates that the Government’s Return fails to engage with 21 the claims actually raised—namely, the unlawful revocation of Petitioner’s conditional 22 parole under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Due Process Clause—and 23 instead attempts to reframe the case as one involving only the proper statutory basis for 24 detention under Sections 1225(b)(2)(A) or 1226(a). ECF No. 7 at 1–2. The Court declines 25 to allow the Government to redefine the claims presented. 26 Petitioner presented herself at the border and was immediately apprehended, 27 processed, found to have a credible fear, and released on her own recognizance. ECF No. 28 7 at 2; see Pet. at 19. Therefore, the relevant legal question is not whether Petitioner is 1 entitled to a bond hearing under Section 1226(a), but whether Respondents unlawfully 2 revoked her existing conditional parole. 3 The Court finds that the legal issues implicated by this Petition—specifically, the 4 court's jurisdiction and whether the Government lawfully revoked a noncitizen's 5 conditional parole upon re-detention—have been squarely addressed by the undersigned in 6 Gergawi v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-3352-JES-MMP, 2025 WL 3719321 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 7 2025), and in the related line of cases from this District. The Court elects to follow that 8 reasoning and incorporates it by reference. Id. 9 A. Jurisdiction 10 Although the Government does not contest the Court's jurisdiction, the Court 11 confirms it may hear this Petition. The jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 12 do not bar this Court from considering Petitioner's habeas claims. See Martinez Lopez v. 13 Noem et al., No. 25-cv-2717-JES-AHG, 2025 WL 3030457, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 14 2025). Federal district courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to hear claims by 15 noncitizens challenging the lawfulness of their detention. Demore, 538 U.S. at 517; 16 Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 687. The Court, therefore, holds that it has jurisdiction over this 17 action. 18 B. Due Process 19 The Due Process Clause protects all individuals in the United States from being 20 “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. 21 “[T]he Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including 22 aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” 23 Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693 (citations omitted). “Freedom from imprisonment—from 24 government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the 25 liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Id. at 690. 26 In Gergawi, the Court—like numerous others in this Circuit—found that the 27 Government may only revoke a noncitizen’s conditional parole, after first providing them 28 with notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding alleged changed circumstances 1 showing them to be dangerous or a flight risk. 2025 WL 3719321, at *3-4; see also Pinchi 2 v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (finding same). 3 It is undisputed that Respondents voluntarily chose to grant Petitioner conditional 4 parole, after she entered the country in 2023. Pet. ¶ 2; Ret. at 2. The Court, therefore, finds 5 that in doing so, Respondents created Petitioner’s liberty interest in remaining out of 6 immigration custody. See Gergawi, 2025 WL 3719321, at *3-4; see also Pinchi, 792 F. 7 Supp. 3d at 1032. 8 Petitioner claims that the Government did not conduct a case-by-case assessment of 9 whether changed circumstances exist that warrant the revocation of her parole, prior to it 10 recently detaining her. Pet. ¶ 4. Nor did it provide Petitioner with any notice of its intent to 11 undertake such activity. Id. Petitioner argues, therefore, the Government failed to follow 12 the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to terminate her parole. Id. The 13 Government does not contest these accusations and, thus, waives it right to do so. See Ret. 14 at 2-3. 15 Accordingly, the Court finds that the Government failed to provide Petitioner with 16 any notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to revoking her parole, when it re-detained 17 her. This conduct falls short of what the Due Process Clause requires to protect such a 18 liberty interest. See Gergawi, 2025 WL 3719321, at *3-4; see also Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d 19 at 1032. As a result, the Government violated Petitioner’s due process rights. C.A.R.V. v. 20 Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01395 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 3059549, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025); 21 Leiva Flores v. Albarran, No. 25-cv-09302-AMO, 2025 WL 3228306, at *5 (S.D. Cal Nov. 22 19, 2025); Faizyan v. Casey, No.: 3:25-cv-02884-RBM-JLB, 2025 WL 3208844, at *7 23 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2025). Accordingly, the Court will order Petitioner’s immediate 24 release. 25 C. APA Claim 26 The Court declines to decide the merits of Petitioner's APA claim given that the 27 Court will grant the relief she seeks, based on its conclusion that Respondents violated her 28 due process rights. l 2 IV. CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons discussed above: 4 (1) The Court GRANTS Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 5 U.S.C. § 2241; 6 (2) Because the Court GRANTS the Petition and concludes that the 7 Government’s revocation of the non-citizen’s conditional parole violates 8 procedural due process, the Government is ORDERED to 9 IMMEDIATELY release the non-citizen from custody, subject to any 10 conditions of her preexisting conditional parole; 11 (3) The Government is ORDERED to file a Status Report on or before June 12 22, 2026, confirming that the non-citizen has been released; and 13 (4) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: June 17, 2026 16 Soar Str, 17 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28