Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KARLA FABIOLA VAZQUEZ Case No.: 26-cv-277-BJC-MMP ALVAREZ, 12 ORDER GRANTING AMENDED Petitioner, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 13 CORPUS v. 14 TODD LYONS, et al, 15 Respondents. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Karla Fabiola Vazquez’s Amended Petition 18 for Writ of Habeas Corpus.1 ECF No. 10. Petitioner is a Mexican citizen who entered the 19 United States in early 2025. She surrendered herself to authorities and was detained. She 20 has remained in custody since that time. On December 9, 2025, an immigration judge 21 entered a final order of removal but granted her relief under the Convention Against Torture 22 23 1 On January 16, 2026, Sayda Ayala filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as a “next 24 friend” of Petitioner. ECF No. 1. On February 25, 2026, the Court dismissed the Petition 25 without prejudice for Ayala’s failure to sufficiently allege she had “next friend” status. ECF No. 9. On March 4, 2026, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Petition 26 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 10. On March 9, 2026, the Court appointed the San 27 Diego Office of Federal Defenders to represent Petitioner and set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 11. On March 13, 2026, Petitioner filed Supplemental Briefing. ECF No. 13. 28 1 (“CAT”). 2 Petitioner argues that her indefinite detention violates Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 3 678 (2001) and 8 U.S.C. § 1231. ECF No. 13 at 6. Petitioner requests that the Court grant 4 the Petition, order Respondents to immediate release Petitioner from custody, and enjoin 5 Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) unless and until they 6 obtain a travel document for her removal. Id. at 16-17. 7 Courts may grant habeas corpus relief to those “in custody in violation of the 8 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241; see also Hamdi v. 9 Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (“[T]he writ of habeas corpus remains available to 10 every individual detained within the United States.”) Courts are authorized to grant writs 11 pursuant to § 2241 to noncitizens in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 12 treaties of the United States. Magana-Pizano v. I.N.S., 200 F.3d 603, 609 (9th Cir. 1999). 13 Under Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682, the Supreme Court held that indefinite detention 14 of aliens subject to final orders of removal “would raise serious constitutional concerns,” 15 therefore, the Immigration and Nationality Act “contain[s] an implicit ‘reasonable time’ 16 limitation, the application of which is subject to federal-court review.” When a noncitizen 17 has been detained longer than six months, and “the alien provides good reason to believe 18 that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the 19 Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. at 701. The 20 petition for release must be granted if the court determines “there is no significant 21 likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. 22 Here, Petitioner’s order of removal became final on December 9, 2025. Wilson Decl. 23 at ¶ 5. She has been in custody over six months. According to Petitioner, there is no 24 significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future because ICE has not 25 been able to identify a plausible placement for her, she has no connection to any other 26 country that could potentially lead to a third country placement, and 98% of persons 27 granted CAT relief and withholding are never removed. ECF No. 17 at 2-3. Respondent 28 counters that it would be premature to conclude that removal in the reasonably foreseeable | future is unlikely before permitting ICE the opportunity to continue with the “diligent 2 || efforts it made to affect Petitioner’s removal before the Court’s enjoinder of removal.” ECF 3 ||NO. 15 at 5. 4 The Court finds that Petitioner’s detention has become prolonged, and she has 5 || provided good reason to believe that her removal is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable 6 ||future. Respondents have failed to rebut that showing. On January 29, 2026, ICE 7 || Deportation Officer Lashaniece Wilson executed a declaration, attached to Respondent’s 8 ||Return, which states that “ERO is looking to remove Petitioner to a third country and 1s 9 ||currently working on identifying a third country for removal.” ECF No. 15-1 4 17. 10 || However, Respondents now claim that “ICE ceased efforts to arrange Petitioner’s removal” 11 || on January 23, 2026, six days before Officer Wilson executed her declaration. Return ECF 12 ||No. 15 at 1. Further confusing the matter, Respondents also contend that “ERO is still in 13 process of identifying countries that may be willing to accept Petitioner for removal” 14 |/in their Return. /d. at 5. 15 Because Respondents have not identified a third country for removal, Respondents 16 failed to rebut Petitioner’s showing. Therefore, the Court concludes that there is no 17 || “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” See Zadvydas, 533 18 at 682. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Amended Petition for a writ of habeas 19 ||corpus. Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner. Respondents and their officers, 20 |/agents, employees, attorneys, and persons acting on their behalf or in concert with them 21 enjoined from removing Petitioner to a third country without notice and a meaningful 22 || opportunity to be heard, following the process detailed in D.V.D. v. U.S. Dep’t Homeland 23 || Sec., 2025 WL 1453640, *1 (D.Mass. May 21, 2025). The Clerk of Court shall close this 24 || case. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: June 17, 2026 6 : I Or C24B a 27 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 28 United States District Judge