Pouya Golestaneh v. Christopher Larose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — (Id.) (Id.) That same year, 1 the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear to Petit
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a noncitizen detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) following an in absentia removal order. The court denied the petition without prejudice because the petitioner did not raise a specific challenge to the statutory authority governing his detention.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prejudice“Because Petitioner does not raise any challenge to his detention under that statute, his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied without prejudice.” | agree with court The court's decision is procedurally sound in the context of habeas corpus practice. A habeas petition must challenge the legality of the specific detention. By conceding that his detention is governed by § 1231(a) and failing to argue that this statute is unconstitutional or that his detention under it is otherwise unlawful (e.g., exceeding the 90-day period without a bond hearing, though not explicitly stated as the missing argument, the general failure to challenge the statutory basis is the stated reason), the petitioner has not presented a cognizable claim for habeas relief. Denying without prejudice allows the petitioner to refile if he can properly frame a challenge to the § 1231(a) detention. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the procedural deficiency in the petition. It correctly identifies the governing statute based on the facts (in absentia removal order) and notes the petitioner's failure to challenge that specific statutory basis. The reliance on a recent district court case for the basic proposition of statutory governance is appropriate. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural dismissal/denial without prejudice.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 POUYA GOLESTANEH, Case No.: 26cv3588 DMS (SBC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 19 Respondents filed a Return to the Petition, and Petitioner filed a Traverse. 20 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Iran. He lawfully entered the United States in 21 2012 on an immigrant visa, and later acquired a green card as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. 22 (Pet. at 2.) 23 In 2013, Petitioner and his wife divorced. (Id.) Petitioner’s ex-wife would no longer 24 support his resident status, and Petitioner filed a petition to remove conditions on residence. 25 (Id.) That petition remained pending for several years, during which Petitioner would 26 apply for and receive temporary green cards. (Id.) 27 That situation continued until 2025, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement 28 (“ICE”) decided not to re-issue a temporary green card to Petitioner. (Id.) That same year, 1 the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear to Petitioner, but 2 according to Petitioner, that Notice was sent to an old address and thus he did not receive 3 it and did not attend his hearing. (Id.) 4 In January 2026, an immigration judge issued an in absentia removal order against 5 Petitioner. (Id. at 2-3.) Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider that decision, which the 6 immigration judge denied. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner then filed an appeal of that decision, which 7 was pending as of June 25, 2026. (Return at 2.) 8 On May 31, 2026, Petitioner was driving for Uber and entered Camp Pendleton. 9 (Pet. at 3.) He was stopped at the entrance kiosk, and the guard ordered him to pull over 10 and wait. (Id.) ICE agents showed up and took Petitioner into custody. (Id.) He was 11 eventually taken to Otay Mesa Detention Center, where he remains. (Id.) 12 On June 17, 2026, Petitioner filed the present case. He raises two claims. First, he 13 alleges he did not receive notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to his detention in 14 violation of his right to due process. Second, Petitioner claims his detention violates the 15 Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Respondents argue Petitioner is lawfully 16 detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and his APA claim fails. Petitioner does not dispute his 17 detention is currently governed by § 1231(a), but argues that statute does not immunize 18 review of the circumstances of his detention. 19 Section 1231(a) “governs the detention of noncitizens who have been ordered 20 removed.” Yohannes v. Chestnut, No. 2:26-cv-01122-JAD-NJK, 2026 WL 1752064, at *3 21 (D. Nev. June 17, 2026). Here, Petitioner was ordered removed in absentia in January 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 ||2026. Thus, his detention is governed by § 1231(a). Because Petitioner does not raise any 2 ||challenge to his detention under that statute, his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 3 || denied without prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: July 29, 2026 4 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28