Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 MOISES VASQUEZ RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 26-cv-04588-BAS-AHG 14 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 15 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 5) 16 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 20 21 Petitioner Moises Vasquez Rodriguez filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 22 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he was improperly detained after the Office 23 of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) released him and allowed him to live in the United 24 States. (ECF No. 5.) The Government filed a Return, conceding that a bond hearing is 25 appropriate under Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842, __F.4th __ (9th Cir. July 26 30, 2026). (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 8.) For the reasons stated 27 below, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition and orders that Petitioner be 28 given a bond hearing within 14 days. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 3 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the writ 4 is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 5 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 6 custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies 7 to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 8 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he has 9 standing to pursue this Petition. 10 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11 In 2018, Petitioner entered the United States unlawfully as a 16-year-old 12 unaccompanied minor. (Am. Pet. 2.) He was detained by immigration authorities and 13 placed in a shelter for minors with ORR. (Id.) After about five months, ORR released 14 Petitioner and permitted him to live with his uncle in Miami, Florida. (Id.) 15 On June 20, 2026, Petitioner was detained by state law enforcement on suspicion of 16 driving without a license and possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. (ECF No. 17 7-1.) On August 13, 2026, the state prosecutor filed an information charging Petitioner 18 with felony possession of cocaine. (ECF No. 7-2.) After Petitioner posted bond, he was 19 turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and transferred to the Otay 20 Mesa Detention Center. (Am. Pet. 3.) Petitioner seeks immediate release. (Id. 7–8.) 21 Alternatively, he requests a bond hearing. (Id. 9–10.) 22 III. ANALYSIS 23 Individuals released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a 24 liberty interest in continued liberty. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 25 (1972) (parolees); Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v. 26 Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). Thus, this Court agrees with those 27 courts that have held: 28 1 [O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, 2 the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed 3 circumstances—namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. And if 4 the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his 5 rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge. 6 Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176–77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet 7 v. Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) 8 (“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the 9 government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody 10 creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be 11 revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting 12 Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))). 13 Here, the Government released Petitioner in 2018 to live with a sponsor, which 14 reflects the Government’s determination that he was neither dangerous nor a flight risk. 15 See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2) (allowing the Government to “consider danger to self, danger to 16 the community, and risk of flight” when placing a minor “in the least restrictive setting that 17 is in the best interest of the child”). Since then, circumstances have changed. Petitioner is 18 an adult, and he has been charged with a felony in state court. However, Petitioner is still 19 entitled to due process and a hearing before an Immigration Judge, where that Immigration 20 Judge can assess whether circumstances have changed since Petitioner’s original release 21 and whether those changed circumstances now warrant detention without bond. The 22 Government also concedes that a bond hearing is appropriate. Hence, the Court GRANTS 23 IN PART the Amended Petition. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 |}IV. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 3 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Moises 4 Vasquez Rodriguez (A# 215-944-664) within 14 days of this order. At that hearing, the Immigration Judge should assess whether circumstances have 5 changed since Petitioner’s release in 2018, and whether these changed 6 circumstances now warrant detention instead of release. 7 The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ~ 10 ||} DATED: September 1, 2026 (yatta Bahar te H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A.