Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALI ANTONIO PEREZ OROPEZA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00656-BTM-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING SECOND 13 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 15 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of [ECF NO. 27] the Department of Homeland Security, et 16 al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 In his first amended petition, Ali Antonio Perez Oropeza claimed that the 2 Respondents violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by revoking his 3 parole without notice and opportunity to be heard. (ECF No. 7, at 4–10.) The Court held 4 that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that he received parole, denied this claim without 5 prejudice, and granted his second claim that his detention without a bond hearing was 6 unconstitutionally prolonged. (ECF No. 10, at 3–4.) 7 Perez Oropeza filed a second amended petition for the writ of habeas corpus on June 8 23, 2026. (ECF No. 27.) He raises both claims again. But this time he provides evidence 9 that the Department of Homeland Security “paroled [him] into the U.S. pending 10 immigration proceedings.” (ECF No. 27-2, Ex. F (“I-213”), at 3.) The Respondents do 11 not contest that the “Petitioner was previously released from immigration custody on 12 conditional parole issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (ECF No. 28, at 2.) They 13 acknowledge that this Court has granted petitions with similar facts and legal issues, and 14 “do[] not oppose the petition nor an order from this Court directing release, subject to 15 reasonable conditions of release.” (Id.) 16 The Court analyzed the same issue in Tulyakov v. LaRose, No. 26-cv-01695, 2026 17 WL 981218 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2026), and Zamudio Rangel v. LaRose, No. 26-cv-01505, 18 2026 WL 1075244 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2026). The Court adopts its previous decisions and 19 applies them here. The Court finds that the Petitioner was granted conditional parole after 20 Border Patrol detained him upon entry and then released him into the country later that 21 day. (I-213, at 3.) The Court also finds that, in light of the Mathews v. Elridge factors, the 22 Petitioner’s liberty interest and the procedural protections afforded that interest outweigh 23 the Respondents’ enforcement interest. See 424 U.S. 319, 334–35 (1976). 24 The Respondents violated the Petitioner’s due process rights by “detaining [him] 25 without justification.” Mohammed H. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1158 (D. Minn. 26 2025); cf. Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155, 172 (2021). The Respondents did not give 27 him notice of any reason for his detention or an opportunity to rebut it. Moreover, they do 28 not contend that any changed circumstances warranted Petitioner’s redetention or that the 1 || Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk. Thus, the writ must issue to release 2 || him from custody. 3 The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED on the first claim. The writ 4 ||is ISSUED. The Respondents shall immediately release Perez Oropeza from custody on 5 preexisting conditions. The Respondents shall return any property obtained from the 6 || Petitioner at the time of his arrest. The Respondents are ordered to provide the Petitioner 7 || with any reporting requirements and a date for his next hearing before an Immigration 8 || Judge for his asylum claim. The parties shall file a joint statement as to the satisfaction of 9 || the writ by June 26, 2026, at 5 p.m. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the writ. 10 Because the Court grants the petition on the first claim, the Petitioner’s claim that 11 his continued detention without a proper bond hearing need not be reached. Claim Two of 12 || the second amended petition is DISMISSED without prejudice as moot. The evidentiary 13 || hearing and bond hearing set for July 6, 2026, at 12 p.m. is VACATED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 ‘ Dated: June 24, 2026 il sek Honordt i Barry Ted Ah wai 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 □ □□