Samuel Guillen Romero v. Jeremy Casey, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et. al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 3 Petitioner argues his continued detention without a custody hearing violates due 4
- 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 detained by ICE after being released to a sponsor, arguing that his detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The court granted the petition, finding that the revocation of the petitioner's release violated due process, and ordered his immediate release under previous conditions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the petition for a 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, who had been released to a sponsor (implying a prior determination of non-dangerousness and non-flight risk), was detained without notice or an opportunity to contest the termination of his release. Citing Noori v. LaRose, the court determined this procedure violated due process. Since the respondents did not oppose a bond hearing and the court found the initial detention procedure defective, granting the writ to release the petitioner is a logical application of the due process clause in this context. |
Ordering immediate release of Petitioner under previously determined conditions“Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner under the previously determined conditions.” | agree with court This is the direct remedy for the finding that the detention was a violation of due process. Releasing the petitioner under the conditions that were in place before the unlawful detention is the appropriate corrective action. |
Enjoining Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner without complying with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process“Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner without complying with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process.” | agree with court The injunction prevents the government from simply re-detaining the petitioner without following the proper regulatory and constitutional procedures, which is a standard prophylactic measure in habeas cases where the detention was found unlawful. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but logically sound. It correctly identifies the legal significance of the prior release to a sponsor (citing Saravia) and applies the due process requirements for terminating that release (citing Noori). The finding that the detention occurred without notice or an individualized determination supports the conclusion that due process was violated. The remedy of release and injunction is appropriate. The order does not explicitly discuss the standard of review for a § 2241 petition, but the factual findings and legal application are clear.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL GUILLEN ROMERO, Case No.: 26-cv-4648-BJC-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 v. 14 JEREMY CASEY, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et. al. 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 On August 14, 2026, Petitioner Samuel Guillen Romero, a citizen of Honduras, filed 20 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. He asserts 21 he entered the United States in late 2017, as an unaccompanied minor. Id. at 3.1 He further 22 asserts he was detained by federal officials and released by the Office of Refugee 23 Resettlement to a sponsor in February 2018. Id. at 3, 5. He filed an application for asylum 24 in 2019, obtained employment authorization and established a residence during his release. 25 Id. at 5-6. He was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on August 26 18, 2026, in Florida. Id. 3, 7. He requested an individualized custody redetermination but 27 28 1 was transferred to the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, where he remains. Id. at 3-4, 2 7. He maintains he is being detained without a bond hearing. Id. at 7. 3 Petitioner argues his continued detention without a custody hearing violates due 4 process. Id. at 10-13. In the response to the petition, Respondents “do not oppose an order 5 from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” ECF 6 No. 4 at 2. 7 While Petitioner seeks a bond hearing as an individual arrested by ICE after living 8 in the United States for many years rather than one seeking admission, the petition indicates 9 he had been released to a sponsor following his entry in 2017. In releasing him to a sponsor, 10 there was a determination that Petitioner was neither a danger to the community nor a flight 11 risk. See Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1177 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff’d 905 F.3d 12 1137 (9th Cir. 2018) (The release of unaccompanied minors to a sponsor, pursuant to 13 federal law, reflects a determination by the federal government that the minor is neither 14 dangerous nor a flight risk. . .”). Petitioner was entitled to due process, including written 15 notice, the reasons for the termination of his release, and an opportunity to contest the 16 determination, prior to termination of his release. Noori v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-1824-GPC- 17 MSB, 2025 WL 2800149, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025). Petitioner contends he was 18 detained when he approached his brother’s car after his brother was stopped by officers. 19 Petitioner contends has had no individualized determination, and it appears his detention 20 was without notice. The Court finds Petitioner’s revocation of his release and detention 21 violated his due process rights. 22 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 23 Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner under the previously determined 24 conditions. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner without complying with 8 2 ||C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: September 3, 2026 5 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