Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILSON HERNAN QUINALOA Case No.: 3:26-cv-02614-RBM-VET YANZAGANO, 10 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR Petitioner, 11 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 12 OMDC, 13 [Doc. 1] Respondent. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Wilson Hernan Quinaloa Yanzagano’s 17 (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). 18 (Doc. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is DENIED. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 A. Factual Background 21 Petitioner, a citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without inspection on or 22 around March 14, 2026. (See Doc. 1 at 4, 6; Doc. 9-1 at 7, 12.) Petitioner was subsequently 23 arrested by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and taken into 24 custody. (Doc. 9-1 at 7.) Petitioner was processed for expedited removal and charged as 25 inadmissible under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 26 (“INA”) as an immigrant not in possession of a valid entry document and section 27 212(a)(6)(A)(i) as a noncitizen present in the United States without being admitted or 28 paroled. (Id. at 8, 11–12.) Petitioner was provided with a credible fear interview during 1 which an asylum officer determined that he did not have a credible fear of returning to 2 Ecuador. (Doc. 1 at 2; see Doc. 9-1 at 8, 14.) 3 On April 10, 2026, an immigration judge reviewed Petitioner’s negative credible 4 fear determination. (Doc. 9-1 at 14–15.) Although the immigration judge found that 5 Petitioner was not covered by a presumption of asylum ineligibility, he affirmed 6 Petitioner’s negative credible fear determination based on a finding that Petitioner failed 7 to establish a significant possibility of asylum eligibility. (Id. at 14–15.) 8 B. Procedural Background 9 On April 1, 2026, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his first Petition for a Writ of 10 Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Original Petition”). See Quinaloa v. Otay Mesa 11 Detention Center, Case No. 3:26-cv-02067-RBM-VET (S.D. Cal., Apr. 1, 2026), ECF No. 12 1. This Court dismissed the Original Petition on April 6, 2026, finding that Petitioner failed 13 to name the warden of the detention facility where is being held and failed to provide 14 sufficient facts to assert a habeas claim. See id., ECF. No. 2 at 1–3. 15 Although Petitioner was granted leave to amend, see id. at 3, he instead commenced 16 the instant action by filing the Petition (see Doc. 1). This action was transferred to the 17 undersigned on April 30, 2026. (Doc. 6.) Respondents filed a Response on May 6, 2026. 18 (Doc. 9.) Petitioner, by and through counsel, filed a Traverse on May 11, 2026. (Doc. 10.) 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 21 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 22 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 23 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 24 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 25 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 26 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 27 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 28 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Petitioner seeks “a stay of deportation” and claims that his due process rights were 3 violated because Respondents did “not give [him] an opportunity to present evidence in 4 support[ ] [of his] asylum claim . . . .” (Doc. 1 at 6–7.) Respondents claim the Petition 5 contains “all of the original defects” as the previously dismissed petition. (Doc. 9 at 1.) 6 Respondents further argue that this “Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s claims” 7 under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(A), 1252(e), and 1252(g) because “Petitioner’s claims are 8 direct and indirect challenges to his § 1225(b)(1) expedited removal order and the 9 application of the expedited removal process to Petitioner.” (Id. at 2, 6.) The Court agrees. 10 First, as Respondents correctly note (see Doc. 9 at 1), Petitioner has not addressed 11 the issues that were previously identified by this Court. In dismissing the Original Petition, 12 the Court found that Petitioner failed to name the warden of the detention center where he 13 is being held. See Quinaloa v. Otay Mesa Detention Center, Case No. 3:26-cv-02067- 14 RBM-VET (S.D. Cal., Apr. 1, 2026), ECF No. 2 at 2. The Court expressly stated that 15 Petitioner “must include the warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Center as a named 16 respondent in order to proceed with this case.” Id. Petitioner has once again failed to do 17 so. See Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 2024) (“[A petitioner’s] failure 18 to name the Facility Administrator [or warden] renders the district court’s exercise of 19 jurisdiction erroneous.”); Cruz Banos v. Alberran, No. 1:25-cv-01634-DC-CSK (HC), 20 2025 WL 3312510, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2025) (denying motion for a temporary 21 restraining order, filed with a § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, where the petitioner 22 failed to “name as a respondent the warden of the facility where he is detained”). 23 Moreover, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the Petition under 8 U.S.C. 24 § 1252(a). As relevant here, federal law “limits the review that [a noncitizen] in expedited 25 removal may obtain via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. 26 Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 111 (2020). Noncitizens subject to § 1225’s expedited 27 removal procedures may be ordered removed from the United States if an asylum officer 28 and, upon review, an IJ both determine that credible fear has not been established. 8 U.S.C. 1 § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii). Noncitizens in expedited removal are not entitled to any further 2 review of the negative credible fear determination from either the Board of Immigration 3 Appeals or federal courts. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.42(f) (“No 4 appeal shall lie from a review of an adverse credible fear determination made by an 5 immigration judge.”). 6 In the context of expedited removal orders, § 1252(a) prohibits judicial review of 7 “the application of [§ 1225(b)(1)] to individual [noncitizens], including the [credible fear] 8 determination made under section 1225(b)(1)(B)” that a noncitizen lacks a credible fear of 9 persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii).; see Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 112. The 10 statute further prohibits judicial review of “the ‘procedures and policies’ that have been 11 adopted to ‘implement’ the expedited removal process; the decision to ‘invoke’ that 12 process in a particular case; the ‘application’ of that process to a particular [noncitizen]; 13 and the ‘implementation’ and ‘operation’ of any expedited removal order.” Mendoza- 14 Linares v. Garland, 51 F.4th 1146, 1155 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 U.S.C. 15 § 1252(a)(2)(A)). “[J]udicial review of such orders is limited to determinations whether 16 the petitioner is [a noncitizen], whether the petitioner was ordered removed under 8 U.S.C. 17 § 1225(b)(1), and whether the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 18 he or she has been granted status as a lawful permanent resident, refugee, or asylee.” 19 Luengas v. Noem, Case No.: 26-cv-236-RSH-KSC, 2026 WL 252582, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 20 30, 2026) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)). 21 In this case, Petitioner claims he was not given an opportunity to provide evidence 22 supporting his asylum claim “despite being found credible by the [immigration] judge.” 23 (Doc. 1 at 6.) As relief, he requests an “opportunity to present evidence before an [IJ] in 24 support of [his] fear to return to Ecuador.” (Id. at 7.) In doing so, Petitioner challenges his 25 negative credible fear determination and the application of the expedited removal process 26 to his case. Petitioner’s claims therefore fall within the scope of the statutory prohibition 27 on judicial review of expedited removal orders. See Guerrier v. Garland, 18 F.4th 304, 28 309 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting that binding precedent “would seem to foreclose . . . the 1 ||petitioner’s request for review of an immigration judge’s negative credible fear 2 determination”); Rodaz v. Lynch, 656 Fed. App’x. 860, 861 (9th Cir. 2016) (“To the extent 3 || [petitioner] challenges the underlying 2010 expedited removal order, we lack jurisdiction 4 consider this collateral attack.”). The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the Petition. 5 To the extent Petitioner seeks a “stay of deportation,” the Court also lacks 6 || jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (precluding jurisdiction 7 ||over the Attorney General’s decision “to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or 8 ||execute removal orders against any [noncitizen]’”). 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT 11 |} PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || DATE: June 29, 2026 pA Barri, Moatiyy 15 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28