VITALINO PABLO PABLO v. DORA OROZCO, Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility; GREGORY J. ARCHAMBEAULT, Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; DAVID VENTURELLA, Acting Director
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen seeking release or a bond hearing. The court granted the petition in part, ordering an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge by September 28, 2026, while denying the request for immediate release without a hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted in part“The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED IN PART.” | agree with court The order grants the petition in part to provide a specific remedy (bond hearing) rather than immediate release. This is a standard procedural outcome in habeas cases where the court finds a due process violation regarding the bond process but does not find that the petitioner is entitled to immediate release on the merits of the detention itself without a hearing. |
Order for individualized bond hearing“The Respondents are ordered to grant Vitalino Pablo Pablo an individualized bond hearing. The bond hearing must be before a fair, neutral, and open-minded immigration judge.” | agree with court The court orders a specific procedural remedy consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (Martinez v. Clark) requiring individualized bond hearings for long-term detainees. The specification of a 'fair, neutral, and open-minded' judge addresses potential due process concerns regarding the adjudicator. |
Remedy of release without a bond hearing denied without prejudice“The remedy of release without a bond hearing is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court denies immediate release, likely because the petitioner has not yet established by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not a danger or flight risk, which is the burden placed on the petitioner in the ordered hearing. Denying it 'without prejudice' allows the petitioner to seek release if he succeeds at the bond hearing. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard from Martinez v. Clark, the controlling Ninth Circuit authority on individualized bond hearings for long-term detainees. It sets clear procedural requirements for the hearing, including the burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) and the specific factors to be considered. The denial of immediate release is consistent with the requirement that the petitioner must prove he is not a danger or flight risk at the hearing.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VITALINO PABLO PABLO, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04099-BTM-JLB 12 Petitioner, FINAL JUDGMENT 13 v. 14 15 DORA OROZCO, Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility; GREGORY 16 J. ARCHAMBEAULT, Field Office 17 Director, San Diego Field Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations, 18 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, 19 U.S. Department of Homeland Security; DAVID VENTURELLA, Acting Director, 20 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 21 U.S. Department of Homeland Security; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, 22 U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 23 and TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; 24 Respondents. 25 26 27 // 28 // I The Court HEREBY ORDERS THAT: 2 1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED IN PART. 3 2. The Respondents are ordered to grant Vitalino Pablo Pablo an individualized 4 bond hearing. The bond hearing must be before a fair, neutral, and open- 5 minded immigration judge. 6 3. The IJ shall consider where the Petitioner will reside, who any surety may be, 7 the appropriateness of non-financial conditions, the nine factors for an IJ to 8 consider in an individualized bond hearing as set forth in Martinez v. Clark, 9 124 F.4th 775 (9th Cir. 2024), and any other factors the IJ deems relevant in 10 this particular case. See also In re Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (B.1.A. 2006). 11 4. The IJ must determine whether the Petitioner is a danger to the community or 12 a flight risk for which there are no conditions available that will deter such 13 risk. If the Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that he is 14 neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk, the IJ must grant bond. If 15 the IJ denies bond, the judge must make specific findings as to why the 16 Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk, and the Government 17 must make the audio of the hearing available to the Petitioner’s counsel. 18 5. The hearing must be held on or before September 28, 2026, unless the 19 Petitioner requests a continuance. 20 6. The parties shall file a joint status report on the result of the bond hearing 21 within forty-eight (48) hours of the bond hearing. 22 7. The remedy of release without a bond hearing is DENIED without prejudice. 23 8. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the writ. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: September 14, 2026 ill ‘ 26 Honor Barry Ted Mh pare 27 United States District Judge 28 2 □