Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SELVIN JAHIR CASERES MORAN, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03580-RBM-MSB 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 12 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL DETENTION [Doc. 1] FACILITY, 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Selvin Jahir Caseres Moran’s (“Petitioner”) 18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) challenging the 19 lawfulness of his detention by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement 20 (“ICE”). (Doc. 1.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without inspection 23 or apprehension as a minor on or about May 30, 2021. (Id. at 4–6; Doc. 1-2 at 1.) Petitioner 24 has work authorization and has an asylum application that has been pending with United 25 States Citizenship and Immigration Services since 2024. (Doc. 1 at 4.) Petitioner was 26 arrested in May 2026 and served with a Notice to Appear that charged him as inadmissible 27 under sections 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 28 (Doc. 1-2 at 3–4.) Petitioner has no criminal record. (Doc. 1 at 4.) 1 Petitioner filed his Petition on June 16, 2026. (Doc. 1.) That same day, the Court 2 set a briefing schedule. (Doc. 2.) On June 24, 2026, Respondents filed their Return to 3 Petition. (Doc. 4.) Petitioner filed a Reply to Return later that same day. (Doc. 5.) 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 6 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 7 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 8 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 9 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 10 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 11 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 12 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 13 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 Petitioner argues that his detention is unlawful because Respondents have 16 wrongfully treated him as detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 rather than § 1226(a) and because 17 his detention violates the court’s orders in Bautista v. Santacruz.1 (Doc. 1 at 4–8; Doc. 5 at 18 1, 3–4.) Petitioner seeks immediate release or a prompt § 1226(a) bond hearing. (Doc. 1 19 at 4.) Respondents do not substantively respond to Petitioner’s arguments, stating only 20 that they “acknowledge[ ] that this Court’s prior decisions will control the result here if the 21 Court adheres to its prior decisions, as the facts are not materially distinguishable . . . and 22 on that basis . . . does not oppose the petition.” (Doc. 4 at 3.) 23 The Court has granted petitions filed by similarly-situated petitioners. See, e.g., 24 Silvestre-Mendoza v. Noem, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03206-RBM-DDL, 2025 WL 3512410, at 25 26 27 1 See Bautista v. Santacruz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2025). As Respondents note, the Ninth Circuit has stayed the judgment of Bautista insofar as it extends beyond the 28 1 *1–2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025). In that decision, the Court found that “‘a proper 2 understanding of the relevant statutes, in light of their plain text, overall structure, and . . . 3 case law interpreting them, compels the conclusion that § 1225’s provisions for mandatory 4 detention of noncitizens seeking admission [do] not apply to someone like [the petitioner],’ 5 who has been residing in the United States” for years. Id. at *1 (quoting Lopez Benitez v. 6 Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2025)). The Court incorporates its reasoning 7 in Silvestre-Mendoza, and makes the same findings, here. 8 There is no dispute that Petitioner was detained in May 2026, after having resided 9 in the United States for about five years. (See Doc. 1 at 4–6.) Therefore, the discretionary 10 detention procedures of § 1226 govern Petitioner’s detention, and the Petition must be 11 granted. The Court also finds that immediate release, rather than a bond hearing, is the 12 appropriate remedy. See E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1324 (W.D. Wash. 13 2025) (“Although the Government notes that Petitioner may request a bond hearing while 14 detained, such a post-deprivation hearing cannot serve as an adequate procedural safeguard 15 because it is after the fact and cannot prevent an erroneous deprivation of liberty.”); Jorge 16 M.F. v. Jennings, 534 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“if Petitioner is detained, 17 he will already have suffered the injury he is now seeking to avoid”); Domingo v. Kaiser, 18 Case No. 25-cv-05893 (RFL), 2025 WL 1940179, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2025) (“Even 19 if Petitioner[] received a prompt post-detention bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 20 was released at that point, he will have already suffered the harm that is the subject of his 21 motion; that is, his potentially erroneous detention.”). 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Accordingly: 24 1. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody. 25 2. The Court ORDERS, prior to any re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner shall 26 receive a hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) to 27 determine whether detention is warranted. The Government shall bear the burden 28 l of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence,” that Petitioner poses a danger to 2 the community or a risk of flight.* 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||DATE: June 26, 2026 ° 6 OK RUTH ernst 2 MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 See Sadegqi v. LaRose, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1090, 1095 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (“Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing, at which Respondents must justify her 23 continued detention by a showing of clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.”) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 25 ||583 U.S. 281 (2018) (explaining that “the substantial liberty interest at stake” warranted 26 placing the burden on the government to “prove by clear and convincing evidence that [a noncitizen] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond’’). 27 ||° This relief has been granted in similar matters. See E.A. T.-B, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 1324; 28 Duong v. Kaiser, 800 F. Supp. 3d 1030, 1043-44 (N.D. Cal. 2025); Lepe v. Andrews, 801 F. Supp. 3d 1104, 1119-20 (E.D. Cal. 2025).