Fabricio J. Trejo Salgado v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States, et. al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — In the response to the petition, Respondents “do not oppose 2 the gra
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an unaccompanied minor who was re-detained by immigration authorities without a pre-deprivation hearing. The court granted the petition, finding that the revocation of the petitioner's release violated due process, and ordered his release within 24 hours or three days depending on the location.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant petition for writ of habeas corpus“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.” | agree with court The court found that the petitioner was entitled to due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard, prior to the termination of his release. The respondents did not dispute that the petitioner was provided no individualized determination or opportunity to be heard. Under the cited regulation and case law, the failure to provide these procedural protections renders the detention a violation of due process. The grant of the writ is a logical consequence of this finding. |
Deny request for attorneys' fees and costs“Petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner filing an appropriate application for fees.” | agree with court The court denied the request without prejudice, allowing the petitioner to file a proper application. This is a standard procedural disposition when a fee request is not properly briefed or supported by a motion in the initial petition stage, preserving the petitioner's right to seek relief later. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable regulation and the due process requirements for terminating conditional parole. It relies on a recent district court case (Noori) to establish the specific procedural rights (notice, reasons, opportunity to contest) and notes that the respondents did not dispute the lack of these protections. The conclusion that the detention violated due process follows directly from the undisputed facts and the cited legal standards. The relief ordered (release) is appropriate for a habeas corpus grant.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FABRICIO J. TREJO SALGADO, Case No.: 26-cv-4409-BJC-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 v. 14 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General of the United States, et. al. 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On July 31, 2026, Petitioner Fabricio J. Trejo Salgado, a Honduras national, filed a 19 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. He asserts 20 he entered the United States on November 3, 2024, as an unaccompanied minor, without 21 inspection. Id. ¶¶ 2, 19. He further asserts he turned himself into immigration authorities, 22 was detained for two days, and was transferred to the custody of Office of Refugee 23 Resettlement in Orlando, Florida. Id. ¶¶ 3, 19. He was released to the custody of his 24 brother about two weeks later. Id. ¶¶ 3, 20. He was stopped by immigration officers on 25 his way to work on July 3, 2026, and taken into custody. Id. ¶ 21. Later, he was transferred 26 to Otay Mesa Detention Center, where he remains. Id. ¶ 22. 27 Petitioner argues his re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated his due 28 1 process rights. Id. ¶¶ 38-49. In the response to the petition, Respondents “do not oppose 2 the grant of a bond hearing under § 1226(a) and otherwise defer[s] to the Court on 3 appropriate relief.” ECF No. 4 at 2. 4 Under applicable regulations, parole is “terminated upon written notice to the 5 [noncitizen].” 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2).1 Additionally, Petitioner was entitled to due process, 6 including written notice, the reasons for the termination, and an opportunity to contest the 7 determination, prior to termination of his release. Noori v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-1824-GPC- 8 MSB, 2025 WL 2800149, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025). Petitioner contends, and 9 Respondents do not dispute, that Petitioner was provided no individualized determination, 10 and no opportunity to be heard before he was detained. The Court finds Petitioner’s 11 revocation of his release and detention violated his due process rights. 12 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 13 Respondents shall provide Petitioner with the following options: (1) release in this District 14 within 24 hours of this order under the previously determined conditions without a 15 monitoring device; or (2) release in his home state of Florida or New York within three (3) 16 days of this order under the previously determined conditions without a monitoring device. 17 Respondents shall file an affidavit by 5:00 p.m. within four (4) days of this order, attesting 18 to Petitioner’s election and confirming his release. Respondents are enjoined from re- 19 detaining Petitioner without complying with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 27 1 Generally, “release on recognizance” during immigration proceedings is “conditional parole.” Ortega- Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 2007); J.S.H.M v. Wofford, No. 25-CV-01309 JLT 28 1 Petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED without prejudice to 2 Petitioner filing an appropriate application for fees. The Clerk of Court shall close this 3 || matter. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 1, 2026 Db sain Oh fo Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 8 United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28