Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 MARVIN ARIEL RUIZ-GARMENDIA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04431-LEK-BJW 5 Petitioner, 6 ORDER GRANTING PETITION v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 7 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 8 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, in his official capacity as Warden of Otay Mesa 9 Detention Center; GREGORY J. 10 ARCHAMBEAULT, in his official capacity as San Diego Field Office 11 Director, Immigration and Customs 12 Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations; DAVID J. VENTURELLA, 13 in his official capacity as Acting Director 14 of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, 15 in his official capacity as Secretary of the 16 Department of Homeland Security, Respondents. 17 19 Before this Court is Petitioner Marvin Ariel Ruiz-Garmendia’s (“Petitioner”) 20 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on 21 August 3, 2026. [Dkt. no. 1.] The respondents, identified in the Petition as Christopher J. 22 LaRose, in his official capacity as Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center; Gregory J. 23 Archambeault, in his official capacity as San Diego Field Office Director, Immigration 24 and Customs Enforcement’s (“ICE”) Enforcement and Removal Operations; David J. 25 Venturella, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs 26 Enforcement; and Markwayne Mullin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the 27 1 Department of Homeland Security (“Respondents”), filed a response to the Petition 2 (“Response”) on August 17, 2026. [Dkt. no. 6.] 3 BACKGROUND 4 Petitioner, a native of Nicaragua, entered the United States on April 22, 5 2022. Petitioner asserts that he was paroled into the United States upon entry. See 6 Petition at ¶ 45. On June 26, 2026, ICE officers detained Petitioner while he attended an 7 annual, mandatory check-in with ICE. See id. at ¶¶ 47, 53. As of the filing of the Petition, 8 Petitioner was detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, California. See 9 id. at ¶ 1. Petitioner’s primary argument is that his re-detention is unlawful, in that it 10 violates: the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”); [id. at pgs. 15-16;] the INA’s 11 implementing regulations regarding bond requests; [id. at pgs. 16-18;] and his due 12 process rights, [id. at pgs. 18-22]. Petitioner alleges he is entitled to, inter alia, release, or 13 in the alternative, a bond hearing pursuant to Title 8 United States Code Section 1226(a). 14 See id. at pg. 23. 15 Respondents acknowledge that “[o]n July 30, 2026, the Ninth Circuit [Court 16 of Appeals] held and clarified that unadmitted aliens present in the interior of the United 17 States are subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and not subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225.” Response at 1; 18 see also Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2026) (holding 19 that noncitizens “present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the 20 United States are subject to the detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A)”). 21 Respondents therefore admit that “Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1226(a).” [Response at 1.] Respondents also “acknowledge[] that Petitioner was 23 previously released from immigration custody on conditional parole issued under 8 24 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” [Id. at 2.] While “Respondents do not oppose an order from this Court 25 directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a),” [id.,] they also do not 26 expressly oppose Petitioner’s request for immediate release. 27 28 1 DISCUSSION 2 There is no dispute that the discretionary detention procedures of 3 Section 1226(a) govern Petitioner’s detention. See Response at 1-2. Accordingly, this 4 Court turns to Petitioner’s argument that he is entitled to immediate release. 5 While Respondents request that this Court decline to address Petitioner’s 6 due process arguments, see id. at 2 n.1, they do not request that this Court deny 7 Petitioner’s request for immediate release. This Court construes Respondents’ non- 8 opposition to Petitioner’s request for immediate release as a concession that Petitioner’s 9 re-detention violates his due process rights. 10 In Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (S.D. Cal. 2025), this district 11 court ruled that the respondents violated the petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process 12 rights when the respondents revoked the petitioner’s parole by sending a mass, generic 13 notification one morning and arresting the petitioner later that day at his immigration 14 hearing. Id. at 1155, 1166. This district court concluded that the petitioner had “a 15 protectable expectation of his due process rights in his removal proceedings and the fair 16 procedures this country guarantees. . . . Particularly, he was entitled to both notification 17 of revocation and the reasoning for revocation, if not also an opportunity to be heard and 18 contest the determination.” Id. at 1165. The district court ordered the petitioner’s 19 immediate release. Id. at 1154.1 20 In the instant action, Petitioner received even less due process than the 21 petitioner in Noori. Petitioner received no notification or individualized reason as to why 22 his release on his own recognizance was being revoked before he was summarily 23 24 25 1 The district court had previously issued a truncated order ordering the petitioner’s immediate release. See Noori, 807 F. Supp. 3d at 1154. The 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146 order 26 was issued to “provide[] a fuller legal analysis and legal basis for the September 26, 2025 27 Order.” Id.

28 1 detained on June 26, 2026 at a required annual check-in with ICE. See Petition at ¶ 47. 2 Nor have Respondents explained, even after they filed the Return, what circumstances 3 have changed to warrant Petitioner’s re-detention. Providing Petitioner a bond hearing 4 would not remedy the Fifth Amendment violation he has already experienced. Only 5 release from detention can accomplish that now. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Marvin Ariel Ruiz-Garmendia’s 8 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed August 3, 2026, is 9 GRANTED insofar as Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner 10 from custody under the same conditions that existed immediately prior to Petitioner’s 11 detention on June 26, 2026. Further, Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED 12 from re-detaining Petitioner unless Respondents demonstrate, by clear and convincing 13 evidence at a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that Petitioner 14 presents a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally 15 justified. 16 The parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report by September 4, 17 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, August 28, 2026. 2 . que ET a re = /s! Leslie E. Kobayashi 4 Leslie E. Kobayashi 5 Fg Senior U.S. District Judge “lta 3 — 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MARVIN ARIEL RUIZ-GARMENDIA VS. CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE ET □□□□□ 26 || CASE NO. 3:26-CV-04431-LEK-BJW; ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 17 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 28