Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGEL DIDIER DEAGUEROS MOTA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02830-RBM-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General of the United States, in his official capacity, 15 [Doc. 10] et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner Angel Didier Deagueros Mota (“Petitioner’) has filed a First Amended 19 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Amended Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 (Doc. 10.) The Court previously denied the original petition, finding that Petitioner had 21 not met his burden to show that his removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably 22 foreseeable future. (Doc. 8 at 3–5.) That denial was without prejudice, and the Court 23 authorized Petitioner to file an amended petition if there were developments in his appeal 24 with the Ninth Circuit or in the processing of his Forms I-485, I-601, and I-212. (Id. at 5.) 25 In the Amended Petition, Petitioner represents that he attempted to complete his 26 Forms I-485, I-601, and I-212, but that he “has been unable to complete the final mandatory 27 prerequisite necessary to file his adjustment application” because detention officials have 28 not allowed Petitioner to attend a required medical examination. (Doc. 10 ¶¶ 3, 33.) 1 Petitioner argues that “[t]hese developments materially distinguish the present record from 2 the one previously before the Court,” as “Petitioner’s inability to complete the examination 3 has prevented him from filing the adjustment application that this Court expressly 4 identified as relevant to the foreseeability of his removal.” (Id. ¶ 4.) 5 The Court ordered the Parties to meet and confer and file a Joint Status Report 6 “outlining any procedures relevant to a detainee receiving such a medical examination 7 and/or any progress made toward coordinating the logistics of transporting Petitioner to his 8 medical examination.” (Doc. 11 at 2.) The Court indicated that it would “evaluate whether 9 to set a briefing schedule on the Amended Petition after reviewing the Joint Status Report.” 10 (Id.) The Parties timely filed their Joint Status Report, indicating that “Petitioner was 11 transported to and attended his medical examination appointment on July 27, 2026,” and 12 that “Petitioner will file his Form I-485, Form I-601, and Form I-212 upon receipt of the 13 results of the medical examination.” (Doc. 12 at 2.) The Court appreciates the Parties’ 14 cooperation and updates. 15 However, the Court does not find that these developments merit a reconsideration of 16 the Court’s previous Order or a new briefing schedule. The Court denied the original 17 petition: 18 In granting relief under Zadvydas, the Ninth Circuit has often “relied on the likely impossibility of removal,” not mere improbability or uncertainty. 19 Prieto Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1063–64 (9th Cir. 2008) (emphasis 20 added). . . .

21 Petitioner, like Prieto Romero, “foreseeably remains capable of being 22 removed—even if it has not yet finally been determined that he should be removed,” and “[t]here is nothing, such as a lack of a repatriation agreement 23 with his home country or a finding that he merits mandatory relief from 24 removal, that would prevent [Petitioner’s] removal to Mexico . . . .

25 (Doc. 8 at 4–5.) 26 Even now that Petitioner has attended his medical examination and has ostensibly 27 filed his Forms I-485, I-601, and I-212, the mere filing of those applications does not 28 support a finding that his removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable 1 future. See also Lagunas v. Facility Adm’r, Adelanto ICE Processing Ctr., Case No. 5:26- 2 cv-00507-MCS-KES, 2026 WL 2041445, at *2—3 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2026). 3 Accordingly, the Amended Petition (Doc. 10) is DENIED. Denial is without 4 || prejudice to Petitioner filing a Second Amended Petition should circumstances change 5 the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on his pending Petition for Review or the processing of 6 ||Petitioner’s Forms I-485, I-601, and I-212. If Petitioner files an amended Petition 7 consistent with the terms of this Order, the amended Petition shall be filed in this case; it 8 || SHALL NOT be filed as a new habeas petition. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || DATE: August 6, 2026 et Barrie, Mottaryys > 12 ON. RUTH BERM@GDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28