Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARWIN ANDERSON AREVALO Case No.: 26-CV-4338 JLS (GC) QUISPE, 12 ORDER GRANTING AMENDED Petitioners, 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF v. HABEAS CORPUS 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., 15 (ECF No. 4) Respondents. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Darwin Anderson Arevalo Quispe’s 19 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” 20 ECF No. 4). Also before the Court are Respondents’ Return to Habeas Petition (“Ret.,” 21 ECF No. 7) and Petitioner’s Traverse (“Traverse,” ECF No. 8). For the reasons set forth 22 below, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 4). 23 BACKGROUND 24 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Peru who entered the United States in 2023, was 25 briefly detained by the Department of Homeland Security, and released on parole under 26 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). Ret. at 2. While Petitioner was paroled, he attended all immigration 27 hearings, applied for asylum, received a work permit and a driver’s license, and followed 28 all conditions of his parole. Pet. at 2–3. On July 5, 2026, Petitioner made a wrong turn 1 into the entrance of a military base in Oceanside, California, and was detained. Id. 2 Petitioner never received notice or an individualized determination of his circumstances 3 before his re-detention. Id. at 3. 4 LEGAL STANDARD 5 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 6 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of 7 his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial 8 body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the 9 court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales, 10 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 11 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising 12 independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention— 13 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 14 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by, Jennings v. 15 Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. 16 Cal. 2018) (citations omitted). 17 DISCUSSION 18 I. Jurisdiction 19 Respondents argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g) and 20 1252(b)(9). Ret. at 2–4. Section 1252(g) provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to 21 hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by 22 the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal 23 orders against any alien under this chapter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Respondents claim that 24 “Petitioner’s claims arise from his detention during removal proceedings, which stem from 25 the Attorney General’s decision to commence such proceedings.” Ret. at 3. The Court 26 disagrees. 27 Section 1252(g) should be read “narrowly” as to apply “only to three discrete actions 28 that the Attorney General may take: her ‘decision or action’ to ‘commence proceedings, 1 adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.’” Ibarra-Perez v. United States, No. 24-631, 2 2025 WL 2461663, at *6 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2025) (quoting Reno v. American-Arab Anti- 3 Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 482, 487 (1999)). Section 1252(g) “does not 4 prohibit challenges to unlawful practices merely because they are in some fashion 5 connected to removal orders.” Id. at *7. Section 1252(g) does not bar due process claims. 6 Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1052–53 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding that the petitioners’ 7 objective was not to review the merits of their proceeding, but rather “to enforce their 8 constitutional rights to due process in the context of those proceedings”). 9 Here, Petitioner does not challenge the decision to commence removal proceedings 10 or any act to adjudicate or execute a removal order. Traverse at 2 n.1. Rather, Petitioner 11 is challenging the legality of his parole revocation, alleged wrongful arrest, and continued 12 detention. Pet. at 4–7. Petitioner is enforcing his “constitutional rights to due process in 13 the context of the removal proceedings—not the legitimacy of the removal proceedings or 14 any removal order.” Garcia v. Noem, 803 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1074 (S.D. Cal. 2025). 15 Therefore, § 1252(g) does not strip the Court of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Navarro Sanchez v. 16 Larose et al., 25-cv-2396 JES (MMP), 2025 WL 2770629, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025) 17 (finding the Court had jurisdiction in a similar matter); Noori v. Larose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 18 1146, 1159–60 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (same). 19 Section 1252(b)(9) provides that “[j]udicial review of all questions of law and fact, 20 including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising 21 from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States 22 under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this 23 section.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (emphasis added). Section 1252(b)(9) “has built-in limits, 24 specifically, claims that are independent of or collateral to the removal process do not fall 25 within the scope” of § 1252(b)(9). Gonzalez v. United States Immigration and Customs 26 Enforcement, 975 F.3d 788, 810 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026, 27 1032 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Respondents argue that the Court 28 lacks jurisdiction under § 1252(b)(9). Ret. at 3–4. Again, the Court disagrees. “[C]laims 1 challenging the legality of detention pursuant to an immigration detainer are independent 2 of the removal process.” Id.; see also Garcia, 803 F. Supp. 3d at 1072–73; Nielson v. 3 Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 402 (2019) (quoting Jennings, 583 U.S. at 294) (finding § 1252(b)(9) 4 did not strip the court of jurisdiction because the petitioners were “not asking for review of 5 an order of removal; they [were] not challenging the decision to detain them in the first 6 place or to seek removal (as opposed to decision to deny them bond hearings); and they 7 [were] not even challenging any part of the process by which their removability w[ould] 8 be determined”). 9 Here, as discussed above, Petitioner is not challenging the Department of Homeland 10 Security’s decision to commence removal proceedings or to adjudicate removability. See 11 Pet. at 4–6. Petitioner is instead challenging the Respondents’ wrongful arrest and 12 detention of Petitioner given his status and due process rights as a parolee. Id. Therefore, 13 § 1252(b)(9) also does not strip the Court of jurisdiction. 14 II. Merits 15 Petitioner argues that the summary revocation of his parole without justification or 16 consideration of his individualized circumstances violates the Due Process Clause. Pet. 17 at 6–7. The Court agrees. 18 The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall be . . . deprived of life, 19 liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. “[T]he Due 20 Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether 21 their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 22 U.S. 678, 693 (9th Cir. 2001). “[I]t is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles 23 aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 24 306 (1993). The Due Process Clause generally “requires some kind of a hearing before the 25 State deprives a person of liberty or property.” Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 26 (1990). “Even individuals who face significant constraints on their liberty or over whose 27 liberty the government wields significant discretion retain a protected interest in their 28 liberty.” Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (citations omitted). 1 Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the 2 government’s discretion, “the government’s decision to release an individual from custody 3 creates ‘an implicit promise,’ upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty ‘will 4 be revoked only if [they] fail[] to live up to the . . . conditions [of release].’” Id. (quoting 5 Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972)). “Thus, even when ICE has the initial 6 discretion to detain or release a noncitizen pending removal proceedings, after that 7 individual is released from custody[,] she has a protected liberty interest in remaining out 8 of custody.” Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1032 (citing Romero v. Kaiser, No. 22-cv-20508, 9 2022 WL 1443250, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2022)). 10 Respondents contend that as an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 11 Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention and therefore his alleged statutory and 12 constitutional violations fail. Ret. at 5. The Court disagrees. Petitioner has been granted 13 humanitarian parole, granting him parole for a limited period which has now expired.1 Ret. 14 at 5, Ex. 2 at 1. Petitioner is not a newly arrived noncitizen seeking admission at the border, 15 as Petitioner has been in the United States since May 2023. Ret. at 2. Upon arrival, he 16 was determined to not be a danger to the community or a flight risk. Petitioner is not 17 merely an “applicant for admission” at the border with minimal due process rights; 18 Petitioner has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody. See, e.g., Pinchi, 19 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1034 (“[Petitioner’s] release from ICE custody after her initial 20 21 22 1 Respondents contend that because Petitioner’s parole expired after a year, any due process arguments are foreclosed. Ret. at 5. The Court disagrees because Petitioner’s liberty “interest did not expire along 23 with Petitioner’s parole agreement.” Ramirez Tesara v. Wamsley, 800 F. Supp. 3d 1130, 1136 (W.D. 24 Wash. 2025). “Once established, Petitioner’s interest in liberty is a constitutional right which may only be revoked through methods that comport with due process, such as a hearing in front of a neutral party 25 to determine whether Petitioner’s re-detainment is warranted.” Id. (citing Padilla v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 704 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1172 (W.D. Wash. 2023)). Therefore, the expiration of Petitioner’s 26 parole does not impact the liberty interest in his release. See, e.g., Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1098, 1109 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (finding the expiration of petitioner’s parole did not extinguish his liberty 27 interest); Quiroga-Chaparro v. Warden of Golden State Annex Det. Facility, No. 1:25-CV-1731 AC, 2025 28 WL 3771473, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025) (same); Kazybayeva v. Warden of Otay Mesa Det. Ctr., No. 1 apprehension reflected a determination by the government that she was neither a flight risk 2 nor a danger to the community, and [Petitioner] has a strong interest in remaining at liberty 3 unless she no longer meets those criteria.”); Noori, 807 F. Supp. 3d at 1164 (“Petitioner is 4 not an ‘arriving’ noncitizen but one that has [been] present in our country for over a year. 5 This substantial amount of time indicates he is afforded the Fifth Amendment’s guaranteed 6 due process before removal.”); Alvarenga Matute v. Wofford, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1120, 1128 7 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (finding petitioner had a protected liberty interest in his release). 8 As Petitioner has a protected liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires 9 procedural protections before he can be deprived of that interest. See Matthews v. Eldridge, 10 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). To determine which procedures are constitutionally sufficient 11 to satisfy the Due Process Clause, the Court must apply the Matthews factors. See 12 Matthews, 424 U.S. at 335. Courts must consider: (1) “the private interest that will be 13 affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest 14 through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute 15 procedural safeguards”; and (3) “the Government’s interest including the function involved 16 and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural 17 requirement would entail.” Id. 18 The Court finds that all three factors support a finding that the Government’s 19 revocation of Petitioner’s release without notification, reasoning, or an opportunity to be 20 heard, denied Petitioner of his due process rights. First, as discussed above, Petitioner has 21 a significant liberty interest in remaining out of custody pursuant to his parole. “Freedom 22 from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical 23 restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty [the Due Process Clause] protects.” Zadvydas, 533 24 U.S. at 690. Petitioner has an interest in remaining with and providing for his family and 25 continuing the asylum process. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. 471 at 482 (“Subject to the 26 conditions of his parole, he can be gainfully employed and is free to be with family and 27 friends and to form the other enduring attachments of normal life.”). 28 1 Second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest is high as Petitioner’s 2 parole was revoked without providing him a reason for revocation or giving him an 3 opportunity to be heard. Pet. at 6–7. Since DHS’s initial determination that Petitioner 4 should be paroled because he posed no danger to the community and was not a flight risk, 5 there is no evidence that these findings have changed. See Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. 6 Supp. 3d 1168, 1760 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (“Release reflects a determination by the 7 government that the noncitizen is not a danger to the community or a flight risk.”). “Once 8 a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from rearresting him merely 9 because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, the federal agents must be able to 10 present evidence of materially changed circumstances—namely, evidence that the 11 noncitizen is in fact dangerous or has become a flight risk. . . .” Saravia, 280 F. Supp. 3d 12 at 1760. Respondents, failing to address Petitioner’s Due Process argument in their 13 response, do not point to any material circumstances that have changed that would warrant 14 reconsideration of his parole. See generally Ret. “Where as here, ‘the petitioner has not 15 received any bond or custody hearing,’ ‘the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty is 16 high’ because neither the government nor [Petitioner] has had an opportunity to determine 17 whether there is any valid basis for her detention.” Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1035 (quoting 18 Singh v. Andrews, 803 F. Supp. 3d 1035, 1047 (E.D. Cal. 2025)) (cleaned up). 19 Third, the Government’s interest in detaining Petitioner without notice, reasoning, 20 and a hearing is “low.” See Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1036; Matute, 807 F. Supp. 3d at 21 1130; Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d 963, 970 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019) (“If the 22 government wishes to re-arrest [Petitioner] at any point, it has the power to take steps 23 toward doing so; but its interest in doing so without a hearing is low.”). Respondents fail 24 to point to any burdens on the Government if it were to have provided proper notice, 25 reasoning, and a pre-deprivation hearing. See generally Ret. 26 Therefore, because Respondents detained Petitioner by revoking his parole in 27 violation of the Due Process Clause, his detention is unlawful. See, e.g., Alegria Palma v. 28 Larose et al., No. 25-cv-1942 BJC (MMP), slip op. 14 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2025) (granting 1 |}a TRO based on a procedural due process challenge to a revocation of parole without a pre- 2 || deprivation hearing); Sanchez v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2396-JES-MMP, 2025 WL 2770629, 3 *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025) (granting a writ of habeas corpus releasing petitioner from 4 || custody to the conditions of her preexisting parole on due process grounds). 5 CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ 7 || of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 4). The Court ORDERS Respondents to immediately release 8 || Petitioner from custody subject to the conditions of his preexisting parole. The Court 9 || ORDERS, prior to any re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner is entitled to notice of the 10 |/reasons for revocation of his parole and a hearing before a neutral decision maker to 11 ||determine whether detention is warranted. The Government shall bear the burden of 12 establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the 13 ||community or a risk of flight. The Parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report by 14 || August 14, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE 15 || the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: August 11, 2026 □□ 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 || ——____—__- 27 This relief has been granted in similar matters. See, e.g., Matute, 807 F. Supp. 3d at 1133; Pinchi, 792 28 || F. Supp. 3d at 1038; Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2025); Martinez Hernandez y. Andrews, No. 25-CV-1035 JLT HBK, 2025 WL 2495767, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2025).