Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSUE JONATHAN POLANCO-GARCIA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-03662-RBM-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 JEREMY CASEY, Warden, et al., [Doc. 10] 15 Respondents.

16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Josue Jonathan Polanco-Garcia’s (“Petitioner”) 19 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 20 challenging the lawfulness of his detention by United States Immigration and Customs 21 Enforcement. (Doc. 10.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Petitioner is a citizen of Honduras who fled his home country to seek asylum in the 24 United States. (Doc. 10 at 2.) He entered the United States on December 7, 2023, was 25 immediately arrested, and four days later was “released from immigration custody on 26 conditional parole.” (Id.; Doc. 11 at 1.) While on parole, Petitioner attended all required 27 immigration check-ins, and had an immigration hearing set for November 27, 2027. 28 (Doc. 10 at 2.) On January 26, 2026, Petitioner was arrested in Florida while he was riding 1 his bicycle. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner was transferred from the county jail into ICE custody, 2 and then transferred to Imperial Regional Detention Facility, where he remains today. (Id.) 3 On June 11, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed. (Id.) Petitioner 4 appealed that order of removal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and that appeal is 5 pending. (Id.) 6 On June 22, 2026, Petitioner, then proceeding pro se, filed his original petition. 7 (Doc. 1.) The Court appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel and set a 8 briefing schedule. (Doc. 4.) Petitioner, now represented, filed his Petition on July 14, 9 2026. (Doc. 10.) Respondents filed their Response to Petition on July 21, 2026. (Doc. 11.) 10 Petitioner filed his Traverse later that same day. (Doc. 12.) 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 13 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2). 14 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 15 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 16 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may 17 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 18 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the 19 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 20 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Administrative Procedure Act and 23 the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 10 at 3–7.) Respondents argue that 24 Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b), but “acknowledge[ ] that this 25 Court’s prior decisions will control the result here . . . , as the facts are not materially 26 distinguishable . . . , and on that basis [do] not oppose the petition and defer[ ] to the Court 27 on the appropriate relief.” (Doc. 11 at 1–2.) 28 The Court has granted petitions filed by similarly-situated petitioners. See, e.g., 1 Silvestre-Mendoza v. Noem, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03206-RBM-DDL, 2025 WL 3512410, at 2 *1–2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025). In that decision, the Court found that “‘a proper 3 understanding of the relevant statutes, in light of their plain text, overall structure, and . . . 4 case law interpreting them, compels the conclusion that § 1225’s provisions for mandatory 5 detention of noncitizens seeking admission [do] not apply to someone like [the petitioner],’ 6 who has been residing in the United States” for several years. Id. at *1 (quoting Lopez 7 Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2025)). The Court incorporates its 8 reasoning in Silvestre-Mendoza, and makes the same findings, here. 9 There is no dispute that Petitioner was detained after having resided in the United 10 States for several years after being released from immigration custody on conditional 11 parole. (Doc. 10 at 2–3.) Therefore, the discretionary detention procedures of § 1226 12 govern Petitioner’s detention, and the Petition must be granted. The Court also finds that 13 immediate release, rather than a bond hearing, is the appropriate remedy. See E.A. T.-B. v. 14 Wamsley, 795 F. Supp. 3d 1316, 1324 (W.D. Wash. 2025) (“Although the Government 15 notes that Petitioner may request a bond hearing while detained, such a post-deprivation 16 hearing cannot serve as an adequate procedural safeguard because it is after the fact and 17 cannot prevent an erroneous deprivation of liberty.”); Jorge M.F. v. Jennings, 534 F. Supp. 18 3d 1050, 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“if Petitioner is detained, he will already have suffered 19 the injury he is now seeking to avoid”); Domingo v. Kaiser, Case No. 25-cv-05893 (RFL), 20 2025 WL 1940179, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2025) (“Even if Petitioner[] received a prompt 21 post-detention bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was released at that point, he 22 will have already suffered the harm that is the subject of his motion; that is, his potentially 23 erroneous detention.”). 24 IV. CONCLUSION 25 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Accordingly: 26 1. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, 27 subject to the conditions of his preexisting parole. 28 2. The Court ORDERS, prior to any re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner shall l receive a hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) to 2 determine whether detention is warranted. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||DATE: July 21, 2026 eet Barrie, MottaryyesD 6 ON. RUTH BERM@DEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28