Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VISMARK E HERNANDEZ DORMUZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-4462-JES-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 14 JEREMY CASEY; GREGORY ARCHAMBEAULT; TODD LYONS; 15 [ECF No. 1] MARKWAYNE MULLIN; TODD 16 BLANCHE; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; 17 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 18 SECURITY, 19 Respondents. 20 Before the Court is Petitioner Vismark E. Hernandez Dormuz’s Petition for a Writ 21 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the Court’s order 22 to show cause (ECF No. 2), Respondents filed a return to the petition and Petitioner filed 23 a traverse. ECF Nos. 4, 5. 24 Petitioner is a native of Nicaragua who entered the United States in order to seek 25 asylum in June 2022. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 8-11. He was detained from June 29, 2022 to January 26 5, 2023 at the Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana. Id. ¶ 11. On January 5, 27 2023, he was ordered released from detention on his own recognizance on an I-220A form. 28 1 Id. at 42. Since his release, he has pursued various avenues of immigration relief and 2 obtained work authorization. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. On June 29, 2026, he was detained by ICE and 3 transferred to the Imperial Detention Facility in Calexico, California. Id. ¶ 14. Before his 4 detention, Petitioner alleges that he was working full-time to support his family and had 5 built extensive ties to the community. Id. ¶ 18. 6 In their return, Respondents state that Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal 7 and had been previously released from immigration custody on an order of supervision 8 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3). ECF No. 4. Respondents further acknowledge that courts 9 have repeatedly ordered release in such situations where prior release was not properly 10 revoked before re-detention. Id. Petitioner’s traverse only argues that he should not be 11 subject to GPS monitoring. ECF No. 5. 12 Though both Petitioner and Respondents discuss release under an order of 13 supervision pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3), the documents submitted to the Court does 14 not support this conclusion. Under the statutory framework, immigration detainees may be 15 initially detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Once there is a final order of 16 removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231 governs further detention. The evidence submitted to the Court 17 does not indicate whether Petitioner’s original detention in 2022 was under § 1226 or § 18 1225, but the evidence does show that Petitioner was released on January 5, 2023 on an 19 “Order of Supervision or Own Recognizance (Form I-220A).” ECF No. 1 at 42. Form I- 20 220A is a “Release on Recognizance” (“OREC”) for individuals who have been placed in 21 removal proceedings, whereas Form I-220B is an “Order of Supervision” for individuals 22 who have a final order of removal but have not yet been removed from the United States. 23 See https://www.uscis.gov/save/current-user-agencies/commonly-used-immigration- 24 documents (compare forms I-220A versus I-220B). Courts have recognized that typically, 25 the term “released on their own recognizance” refers to conditional parole under § 1226. 26 Ortega-Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 2007) (“It is apparent that 27 the INS used the phrase ‘released on recognizance’ as another name for ‘conditional parole’ 28 under § 1226(a)”); J.S.H.M v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01309 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2938808, 1 *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025); Castellon v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-00968 JLT EPG, 2025 2 || WL 2373425, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2025); Faizyan v. Casey, No. 3:25-CV-0884-RBM- 3 || JLB, 2025 WL 3208844, at *1 n.2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2025). This is also supported by 4 ||documentation that on January 26, 2026—long after Petitioner’s release—Immigration 5 || Court had scheduled Petitioner for a Master Calendar Hearing on May 4, 2028, indicating 6 || that his removal proceedings were not yet finalized. 7 However, regardless of the fact that Petitioner appears to have been released under 8 conditional release pursuant to § 1226 rather than an order of supervision under § 1231, 9 ||the Court still finds reason to grant the petition. Many courts, including this one, have 10 || repeatedly held that a prior grant of release under an Order of Recognizance raises a liberty 11 |/interest for the petitioner and entitles the petitioner to due process rights under procedural 12 ||due process. See, e.g., Singh v. Archambeault, No. 26-CV-1072-JES-MSB, 2026 WL 13 |[555589 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2026); Qiu v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-1033-JES-MSB, 2026 WL 14 }/531445 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2026). Accordingly, the Court adopts its prior reasoning and 15 || finds that due process requires release of Petitioner here. 16 Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. Respondents are 17 || ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to any conditions of 18 || his prior release that existed at the time he was re-detained. The Parties are ORDERED to 19 || file a Joint Status Report by August 19, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released. 20 The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to CLOSE this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: August 14, 2026 23 Serf, 24 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28