The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LEOBARDO CHAVEZ BARRIENTOS, No. 1:25-cv-00258-SKO (HC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
13 v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
14 U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., TO GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS
PETITION (Doc. 6)
15 Respondents.
(21-DAY DEADLINE)
16
17
18 Petitioner, currently in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
19 Enforcement (“ICE”) and proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is challenging his continued detention.
21 FACTUAL SUMMARY
22 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. (Doc. 6-1 at 3.) Petitioner is currently being
23 detained at the Mesa Verde Detention Center in Kern County, California. (Doc. 1 at 3.) He has
24 been encountered and removed by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) numerous
25 times. He first entered the United States without admission, inspection or parole on or about June
26 25, 1981. (Doc. 6-1 at 3.) On May 4, 1988, he was granted legal resident status. (Doc. 6-1 at 3.)
27 He then committed many crimes in the United States leading up to his removable offense for
28 being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Doc. 6-1 at 3.)
1 On December 18, 1997, Petitioner was convicted of being a felon in possession of a
2 firearm. (Doc. 6-1 at 3.) On January 8, 1998, Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings due to
3 this conviction. (Doc. 6-1 at 3.) On April 10, 1998, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner
4 removed to Mexico, whereupon DHS removed Petitioner. (Doc. 6-1 at 4.) DHS apprehended,
5 detained and removed Petitioner several times after Petitioner again entered the United States
6 without admission, inspection or parole – on September 3, 2001, March 28, 2003, and November
7 1, 2006. (Doc. 6-1 at 4.)
8 On April 9, 2015, Petitioner presented himself at a port of entry seeking admission to the
9 United States (Doc. 6-1 at 4), and was promptly removed. Again, on April 12, 2015, DHS
10 apprehended, detained and began administratively processing Petitioner for reinstated removal
11 after Petitioner entered the United States without inspection. (Doc. 6-1 at 4.) During those
12 administrative proceedings, Petitioner claimed to be a dual citizen of the United States and
13 Mexico. (Doc. 6-1 at 4.) Petitioner was taken into custody on illegal re-entry charges. (Doc. 6-1 at
14 4.) On September 3, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
15 dismissed the charges on motion of the prosecutor, and Petitioner was released to DHS custody.
16 (Doc. 6-1 at 4.) On September 4, 2015, DHS released Petitioner from its custody to allow him to
17 pursue a possible claim of citizenship. (Doc. 6-1 at 4.)
18 On August 17, 2018, Petitioner filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
19 (“USCIS”) a Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, claiming he acquired U.S.
20 citizenship through his naturalized parents. (Doc. 6-1 at 4.) While the application was pending, on
21 March 27, 2020, Petitioner was arrested and taken into federal custody on drug trafficking
22 charges. (Doc. 6-1 at 4.) On March 30, 2020, USCIS denied Petitioner’s Form N-600 determining
23 Petitioner was not eligible for U.S. citizenship. (Doc. 6-1 at 4.) Petitioner did not appeal the
24 decision.
25 On October 25, 2021, Petitioner was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of
26 Oregon for drug trafficking offenses. (Doc. 6-1 at 5.) He was sentenced to a term of 60 months
27 imprisonment. (Doc. 6-1 at 5.) While in federal prison, on March 2, 2023, Petitioner sought
28 review of the USCIS denial of his Form N-600 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
1 of California. (Doc. 6-1 at 5.) On March 6, 2024, the district court dismissed the claim finding it
2 lacked subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 6-1 at 5.) On March 7, 2024, he filed petitions for review
3 before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
4 California. (Doc. 6-1 at 5.) On May 2, 2024, the Ninth Circuit transferred the case to the Central
5 District. (Doc. 6-1 at 5.) On June 28, 2024, the Central District transferred the case back to the
6 Ninth Circuit noting that the Ninth Circuit “must conduct an initial preliminary review of the
7 claim that Petitioner is actually a U.S. citizen and either decide the nationality claim if there is no
8 genuine issue of material fact or transfer it to this court to render a decision on the disputed claim
9 of U.S. citizenship.” (Doc. 6-1 at 5.)
10 On August 9, 2024, Petitioner was released from federal prison and taken into DHS
11 custody. (Doc. 6-1 at 5.) DHS reinstated the removal order but could not effectuate removal due
12 to the automatic temporary stay of removal issued by the Ninth Circuit upon filing of the petition
13 for review. (Doc. 6-1 at 5.)
14 While detained in DHS custody, on March 31, 2025, a bond hearing was held before an
15 immigration judge. (Doc. 6-1 at 5.) The immigration judge determined by clear and convincing
16 evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community and a significant flight risk. (Doc. 6-1 at
17 5.) On April 7, 2025, Petitioner appealed the immigration judge’s decision with the Board of
18 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (Doc. 6-1 at 6.)
19 Petitioner is currently detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) as he has a final order of
20 removal that is part the 90-day removal period, but remains a flight risk and danger to the
21 community.
22 Petitioner filed the instant petition on February 28, 2025. (Doc. 1.) On May 5, 2025,
23 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 6.) On May 22, 2025, Petitioner filed an opposition
24 to the motion. (Doc. 8.)
25 DISCUSSION
26 A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can
27 show that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A
28 habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration”
1 of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Preiser v.
2 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules
3 Governing Section 2254 Cases. However, the petition must “allege facts concerning the
4 applicant’s commitment or detention,” 28 U.S.C. § 2242, and the petitioner must make specific
5 factual allegations that would entitle him to habeas corpus relief if they are true. O’Bremski v.
6 Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Poopola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th
7 Cir.1989).
8 Initially, the Court notes that Petitioner’s claim that he is being detained without an
9 immigration judge conducting a hearing to determine whether his continued detention is
10 warranted is now moot, since Petitioner was provided a bond hearing before an immigration
11 judge on March 31, 2025. As previously noted, the immigration judge denied release on bond
12 after concluding Petitioner posed a danger to the community and a significant flight risk.
13 Ultimately, Petitioner has been granted the relief he sought, to wit, “a hearing before an
14 immigration judge where: (1) to continue detention, the government must establish by clear and
15 convincing evidence that petitioner presents a risk of flight or danger.” (Doc. 1 at 18.)
16 Petitioner nonetheless claims he is being indefinitely detained by ICE in violation of his
17 Constitutional rights. In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court held that
18 the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) post-removal-period detention statute does not
19 permit indefinite detention but “implicitly limits an alien’s detention to a period reasonably
20 necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States.” Id at 689. When faced
21 with such a determination, the Court must consider “the basic purpose of the statute, namely
22 assuring the alien’s presence at the moment of removal.” Id. at 699. The Court must also take
23 appropriate account of the Executive Branch’s “greater immigration related expertise,” the
24 Bureau’s “administrative needs and concerns,” and the “Nation’s need to speak with one voice on
25 immigration.” Id. at 700. The Supreme Court attempted to limit those occasions when the federal
26 court would need to make such “difficult judgments” by setting a “presumptively reasonable
27 period of detention” of six months. Id. at 701. The burden is on the alien to show that there is no
28 reasonable likelihood of repatriation. Id. After six months and once an alien makes a showing
1 that there is no “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the
2 Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id.
3 Here, Petitioner has been detained for approximately eleven months following his final
4 order of removal and beyond the six-month presumptively reasonable period. He has not shown,
5 however, that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
6 Petitioner has been ordered removed to Mexico, and the United States and Mexico do not have a
7 constrained relations such that removals prove difficult or impossible. Petitioner has already been
8 successfully removed to Mexico on numerous occasions already, and detention is not indefinite in
9 nature. Petitioner’s removal would have been accomplished long ago but for the automatic stay
10 issued when he appealed the denial of his dual citizenship claim to the Ninth Circuit. That appeal
11 has been before the Ninth Circuit since March 7, 2024. There is no indication that the appeal will
12 not be decided in the near term, and once the appeal is decided, no obstacles will be in the path of
13 removing Petitioner to Mexico. Petitioner thus fails to show there is no “significant likelihood of
14 removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.
15 Against this background, Petitioner has been provided a bond hearing before an
16 immigration judge where it was determined Petitioner’s release on bond would pose a significant
17 danger to the public as well as a flight risk. The Court finds that Petitioner’s current detention
18 continues to serve congressionally mandated goals of protecting the public from danger and
19 assuring Petitioner’s presence for removal. Given the due process Petitioner has been provided
20 and the government’s interests in protecting the public and assuring removal, the Court does not
21 find that Petitioner’s ongoing detention violates due process. Respondent’s motion should be
22 granted and the petition be dismissed.
23 ORDER
24 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Judge to this case.
25 RECOMMENDATION
26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s
27 motion to dismiss be GRANTED and the petition be DISMISSED.
28 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge
1 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the
2 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within
3 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a
4 party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document
5 should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall
6 not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not
7 consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any
8 exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page
9 number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in
10 excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when
11 reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The
12 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver
13 of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This
14 recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of
15 Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
16 should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19 Dated: August 4, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28