Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONSTANTINO SALAZAR-RUBIO, Case No.: 26-cv-3311-JES-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 [ECF No. 1] Respondents. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Constantino Salazar-Rubio’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 19 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the 20 Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 7), Respondents filed a return. ECF No. 8. After 21 due consideration and for the reasons below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT 22 PREJUDICE the petition. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Petitioner is a native of Mexico who is currently in detention at the Imperial Regional 25 Detention Facility. ECF No. 1. Petitioner alleges that he first entered the United States in 26 1983 and became a permanent resident in 1985. ECF No. 1-2. In 1998, he was convicted 27 of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Id. After serving a total of 25 years, he was 28 released. Id. 1 Due to the criminal conviction, Petitioner alleges that he lost his permanent resident 2 status and was subsequently put into removal proceedings after his release from prison. Id. 3 He applied for asylum and withholding of removal, and on March 2, 2022, Petitioner 4 alleges that he was granted Deferral of Removal under the Convention Against Torture. Id. 5 He was then released from custody on conditional parole, and instructed to adhere to certain 6 conditions. Id. On August 28, 2023, during a scheduled check-in, Petitioner alleges that he 7 was removed to Mexico without any prior warning. Id. 8 After being deported to Mexico, Petitioner alleges that he remained in fear for his 9 life in Mexico and applied to return to the United States through the CBP One Application. 10 Id. He was given an appointment on October 2, 2024, and appeared at a Port of Entry for 11 his appointment. Id. He was detained upon arrival and has remained in detention ever since. 12 Id. 13 During detention, Petitioner litigated his new removal proceedings. Id. On March 14 16, 2026, he was denied all relief by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and was ordered 15 removed. Id.; ECF No. 8 at 3. Petitioner indicates that he appealed the decision to the Board 16 of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), but it appears that he subsequently filed a motion to 17 withdraw his appeal to the BIA, which the BIA granted on June 3, 2026. ECF No. 8 at 3. 18 II. LEGAL STANDARD 19 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 20 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 21 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 22 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 23 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of 24 habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the 25 Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas 26 corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in 27 that context that its protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 28 (2001). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within the purview 1 of a district court’s habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see 2 also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 Based on the facts as alleged in the petition and return, Petitioner’s order of removal 5 became final on June 3, 2026, when his appeal to the BIA was dismissed.1 8 C.F.R. § 6 1241.1(a). Once an immigration court enters a final order of removal, § 1231 governs the 7 detention. Under this provision, the government “shall remove the alien from the United 8 States within a period of 90 days.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A)-(a)(2)(A). The government 9 shall detain the alien in custody during the initial 90-day removal period by statute. Id. In 10 Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that when the government is unable to remove an alien 11 within 90 days, the alien may seek review of the reasonableness of their continued 12 detention under the due process clause through petition for writ of habeas corpus. 533 U.S. 13 at 687. The Court instructed courts to analyze whether continued detention beyond the 90- 14 day period “exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure removal,” based on “the 15 [removal detention] statute’s basic purpose, namely, assuring the alien’s presence at the 16 moment of removal.” Id. at 699. The Court has held that it is presumptively reasonable for 17 the government to detain an alien for a period of 6 months while it works to effectuate his 18 removal after issuing a final order of removal against him. Id. at 701. Beyond that period, 19 “if removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court should hold continued detention 20 unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute” and grant the petition for writ of habeas 21 corpus. Id. at 699-700. 22 With a final order of removal against Petitioner, detention is now governed by § 23 1231 by statute. Under the § 1231 framework as outlined above, Petitioner’s removal 24 25 1 Petitioner did not include information in his petition regarding the filing of the motion to withdraw the appeal. However, Respondents filed a sworn declaration from an ICE 26 deportation officer regarding withdrawal of the appeal and BIA’s grant of the motion, 27 making the removal administratively final. ECF No. 8-1 ¶¶ 16-17. Thus, the Court takes this as true for the purposes of this order. The denial of the petition is without prejudice, in 28 1 || period clock started on June 3, 2026, when his removal became final. Thus, to date, his 2 || detention period is just over one month, which is still within the presumptively reasonable 3 || period articulated in Zadvydas. 4 Accordingly, at this time, the Court must DENY Petitioner’s petition. The denial, 5 ||however, is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner refiling should his detention post- 6 removal extend past the 6-month period of presumptive reasonableness. 7 IV. CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition WITHOUT 9 || PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: July 9, 2026 12 Vw Sin, 13 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28