Noem

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 VICTOR ESQUIVEL-IPINA, Case No.: 25-CV-2672 JLS (BLM)

12 Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

13 v. DENYING IN PART PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior

Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; et

15 (ECF No. 1)

al.,

16

Respondents.

17

18 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Victor Esquivel-Ipina’s1 Petition for Writ of

19 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Also before the Court

20 is Respondents Christopher LaRose’s (Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center),

21 Kristi Noem’s (Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security), Todd Lyons’s (Acting

22 Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), Patrick Drivver’s (Field Officer

23 Director, San Diego Field Office), Sirce Owen’s (Acting Director of the Executive Office

24 for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice), and Pamela Bondi’s (U.S. Attorney

25 General) (collectively, “Respondents”) Return to Habeas Petition (“Ret.,” ECF No. 5) and

26

27

28 1 The Court notes that Petitioner’s name has been incorrectly spelled on the Docket. The correct

1 Petitioner’s Traverse (“Traverse,” ECF No. 6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court

2 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

3 Corpus.

4 BACKGROUND

5 Petitioner is a citizen and national of Guatemala. Pet. ¶ 28. At an unknown location

6 “around 2013,” Petitioner entered the United States without being admitted, paroled, or

7 inspected. Id. On September 6, 2025, Petitioner was stopped by U.S. Immigration and

8 Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and charged with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C.

9 § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)2 and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).3 Ret. at 2. Petitioner was then

10 placed in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and issued a Notice to Appear.

11 Id. Petitioner is currently detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego,

12 California. Id. Petitioner claims that he is detained in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and

13 the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pet. ¶¶ 36–43. Petitioner also raises for

14 the first time in his Traverse the legality of his initial seizure. Traverse at 2.

15 LEGAL STANDARD

16 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the

17 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of

18 his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial

19 body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the

20 court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales,

21 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat.

22 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising

23 independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention—

24

25

2 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) designates as inadmissible, and therefore “ineligible to receive visas and

26 ineligible to be admitted to the United States,” illegal entrants who are present “without being admitted

or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the

27

Attorney General.”

28 3 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) designates as inadmissible entrants who are not in possession of a valid

1 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. Nadarajah v. Gonzales,

2 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez,

3 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal.

4 2018) (citations omitted).

5 DISCUSSION

6 Respondents first argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction because Petitioner lacks

7 Article III standing. Ret. at 3. Respondents further argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction

8 under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(g) and § 1225 (b)(9) and that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his

9 administrative remedies. Id. at 3–7. Respondents then argue, if the Court finds jurisdiction

10 and waives exhaustion, that Petitioner’s claims fail on the merits because Petitioner is

11 subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Id. at 7–11.

12 I. Standing

13 Respondents argue that because “Petitioner has not yet had [or been denied] a bond

14 hearing,” there is no controversy for the Court to resolve. Id. at 3. Article III standing

15 requires a “case” or “controversy.” U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2; see Lujan v. Defenders of

16 Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). However, “the injury required for standing need

17 not be actualized.” Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008). Rather,

18 “[a] party facing prospective injury has standing to sue where the threatened injury is real,

19 immediate, and direct.” Id. (citing Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983)).

20 The Court concludes that Petitioner has standing. First, Petitioner has been held

21 since September 6, 2025, without a bond hearing and without any opportunity for a hearing

22 in the future as Respondents contend Petitioner is detained under § 1225(b), which requires

23 mandatory detention. Ret. at 8; see also E.C. v. Noem, No. 25-CV-1789-RFB-BNW, 2025

24 WL 2916264, at *6 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2025) (finding standing where respondents insisted

25 petitioner was detained under § 1225(b) even though petitioner had not yet had or been

26 denied a bond hearing). Second, if Petitioner were to request a bond hearing, the Court

27 finds that its denial would be real, immediate, and direct because immigration judges are

28 bound by the decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025) to find

1 detention classified under § 1225(b) mandatory. See E.C., 2025 WL 2916264, at *6

2 (“Because Hurtado divests IJs of jurisdiction to consider the release on bond of any

3 noncitizen who entered without inspection, [p]etitioner’s injury of detention without the

4 due process procedures afforded under § 1226(a) is both immediate and certain to continue

5 without [c]ourt intervention.”). Therefore, Petitioner has Article III standing to challenge

6 his detention.

7 II. Jurisdiction

8 Section 1252(g) provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or

9 claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney

10 General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any

11 alien under this chapter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Respondents claim that “Petitioner’s claims

12 necessarily arise from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence

13 proceedings and adjudicate cases.” Ret. at 4 (simplified). The Court disagrees.

14 Section 1252(g) should be read “narrowly” as to apply “only to three discrete actions

15 that the Attorney General may take: her ‘decision or action’ to ‘commence proceedings,

16 adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.’” Ibarra-Perez v. United States, No. 24-631,

17 2025 WL 2461663, at *6 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2025) (quoting Reno v. American-Arab Anti-

18 Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 482, 487 (1999)). Section 1252(g) “does not

19 prohibit challenges to unlawful practices merely because they are in some fashion

20 connected to removal orders.” Id. at *7. Section 1252(g) does not bar due process claims.

21 Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1052–53 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding that the petitioners’

22 objective was not to review the merits of their proceeding, but rather “to enforce their

23 constitutional rights to due process in the context of those proceedings”).

24 Here, Petitioner does not challenge the decision to commence removal proceedings

25 or any act to adjudicate or execute a removal order. Traverse at 4. Rather, Petitioner is

26 challenging the legality of his initial seizure and the “agency’s later misclassification of

27 custody under [§ 1225(b)], which together deprived [him of his] statutory right to a bond

28 hearing under § 1226(a).” Id. Petitioner is enforcing his “constitutional rights to due

1 process in the context of the removal proceedings—not the legitimacy of the removal

2 proceedings or any removal order.” Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2180-DMS-MMP, 2025

3 WL 2549431, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025). Therefore, § 1252(g) does not strip the Court

4 of jurisdiction.

5 Section 1252(b)(9) provides that “[j]udicial review of all questions of law and fact,

6 including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising

7 from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States

8 under this subchapter shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this

9 section.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (emphasis added). Respondents argue that Petitioner is

10 challenging “the government’s decision and action to detain him” during removal

11 proceedings. Ret. at 6. Respondents assert that the decision to detain Petitioner arises from

12 the “decision to commence removal proceedings” and thus is “an action taken . . . to remove

13 [him] from the United States.” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)). Respondents conclude

14 that the Court lacks jurisdiction under § 1252(b)(9). Id. Again, the Court disagrees.

15 Section 1252(b)(9) “has built-in limits, specifically, claims that are independent of

16 or collateral to the removal process do not fall within the scope” of § 1252(b)(9).

17 Gonzalez v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 975 F.3d 788, 810 (9th

18 Cir. 2020) (citing J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026, 1032 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal

19 quotation marks omitted)). “[C]laims challenging the legality of detention pursuant to an

20 immigration detainer are independent of the removal process.” Id.; see also Garcia, 2025

21 WL 2549431, at *3–4; Nielson v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 402 (2019) (quoting Jennings v.

22 Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 294 (2018)) (finding § 1252(b)(9) did not strip the court of

23 jurisdiction because the petitioners were “not asking for review of an order of removal;

24 they [were] not challenging the decision to detain them in the first place or to seek removal

25 (as opposed to decision to deny them bond hearings); and they [were] not even challenging

26 any part of the process by which their removability w[ould] be determined”).

27 Here, as discussed above, Petitioner is not challenging the Department of Homeland

28 Security’s decision to commence removal proceedings, to adjudicate removability, or to

1 exercise its general discretion to detain. See Traverse at 3. Petitioner is instead challenging

2 the “statutory and constitutional authority under which that detention was classified” and

3 his alleged misclassification depriving him of a bond hearing. Id. Therefore, § 1252(b)(9)

4 also does not strip the Court of jurisdiction.

5 III. Exhaustion

6 “Exhaustion can be either statutorily or judicially required.” Acevedo-Carranza v.

7 Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 539, 541 (9th Cir. 2004). While 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “does not specifically

8 require petitioners to exhaust direct appeals before filing petitions for habeas corpus,” the

9 Ninth Circuit “require[s], as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust available

10 judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.” Castro-Cortez

11 v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by, Fernandez-

12 Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006). Prudential exhaustion may be required if: “(1)

13 agency expertise makes agency consideration necessary to generate a proper record and

14 reach a proper decision; (2) relaxation of the requirement would encourage the deliberate

15 bypass of the administrative scheme; and (3) administrative review is likely to allow the

16 agency to correct its own mistakes and to preclude the need for judicial review.” Puga v.

17 Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d

18 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[A] court may waive the prudential exhaustion requirement if

19 ‘administrative remedies are inadequate or not efficacious, pursuit of administrative

20 remedies would be a futile gesture, irreparable injury will result, or the administrative

21 proceedings would be void.’” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 988 (9th Cir. 2017)

22 (quoting Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004)).

23 The Court, following other courts in this District, finds that exhaustion would be

24 futile because the Board of Immigration Appeals is obligated to apply the binding

25 precedent of Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025) to find that

26 detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). See, e.g., Garcia, 2025 WL 2549431,

27 at *4–5; Valdovinos v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2439 TWR (KSC), slip op. at 9 (S.D. Cal.

28

1 Sept. 25, 2025). Therefore, the Court concludes that exhausting administrative remedies

2 would be futile.

3 IV. Merits

4 A. Detention Under § 1225(b)

5 Respondents argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under

6 § 1225(b)(2)(A) as an applicant for admission. Petitioner argues that he has been

7 unlawfully subject to the mandatory detention provision under § 1225(b)(2), which

8 “applies only to ‘applicants for admission’ encountered at or near the border” and not to

9 individuals like Petitioner, who was apprehended in the interior and has been residing in

10 the United States since 2013. Pet. ¶ 37. Petitioner alleges that he is entitled to an

11 individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a), and that his mandatory detention based on

12 the Board of Immigration Appeals decision, Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216

13 (BIA 2025), contravenes “the statutory text, longstanding agency interpretation, and the

14 limits Congress reaffirmed in the Laken Riley Act of 2025.” Id. ¶ 38.

15 Section 1225 applies to “applicants for admission” who are “alien[s] present in the

16 United States who [have] not been admitted or who arrive[] in the United States (whether

17 or not at a designated port of arrival . . .).” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Section 1225(b)(2)(A)

18 provides in part that “an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining

19 immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly beyond a

20 doubt entitled to be admitted, . . . shall be detained for a proceeding under [§ 1229a].” Id.

21 § 1225(b)(2)(A).

22 Section 1226(a) applies to a noncitizen who is “detained pending a decision on

23 whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Section

24 1226 provides, so as long as the detained noncitizen is not covered by § 1226(c), that

25 pending such decision, the Attorney General may release the noncitizen on bond. See

26 Jennings, 583 U.S. at 306 (“Federal regulations provide that aliens detained under

27 § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention.”). Section 1226(c) requires

28 mandatory detention for noncitizens who have been charged with certain crimes listed in

1 § 1182(a) and § 1227(a). § 1226(c)(1). Notably, § 1226(c)(1)(E) (enacted by the Laken

2 Riley Act) requires mandatory detention for noncitizens who are (1) inadmissible under

3 §1182(a)(6)(A), (6)(C), or (7); and (2) charged with certain crimes.4 § 1226(c)(1)(E). “A

4 plain reading of this exception implies that the default discretionary bond procedures in

5 Section 1226(a) apply to a noncitizen who . . . is present without being admitted or paroled

6 but has not been implicated in any crimes as set forth in Section 1226(c).” Rodriguez v.

7 Bostock, No. 3:25-CV-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *17 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30,

8 2025).

9 Here, Petitioner is currently subject to mandatory detention at the Otay Mesa

10 Detention Center pursuant to § 1225(b)(2). Ret. at 2. If the Court determines that Petitioner

11 is held pursuant to § 1226 and not § 1225(b)(2), Petitioner would be entitled to a bond

12 hearing in front of an immigration judge.

13 The Court follows other decisions in this Circuit finding that “seeking admission

14 requires an affirmative act such as entering the United States or applying for status, and

15 that it does not apply to individuals who, like [Petitioner], have been residing in the United

16 States and did not apply for admission or a change of status.” Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 25-

17 CV-2304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025); see, e.g.,

18 Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 2:25-CV-01542-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2676082, at *11–16 (D. Nev.

19 Sept. 17, 2025); Rodriguez, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 (“Every district court to address this

20 question has concluded that the government’s position belies the statutory text of the INA,

21 canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”);

22 Guzman v. Andrews, No. 25-CV-1015-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2617256, at *4–5 (E.D.

23 Cal. Sept. 9, 2025) (finding that petitioner who was released on bond and rearrested was

24 entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226); Garcia, 2025 WL 2549431, at *8 (providing

25

26

27

28 4 These crimes are “burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, or assault of a law enforcement officer offense,

1 petitioner with an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a)); Valdovinos v. Noem, No.

2 25-CV-2439 TWR (KSC), slip op. at 9 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2025) (same).

3 Petitioner “was not encountered at a port of entry, during inspection at the border,

4 or among individuals intercepted near the international boundary.” Traverse at 10.

5 Petitioner was arrested in the interior of the United States by ICE Officers, not while

6 presenting himself at the gate of entry to attempt to apply for admission. Id. Petitioner

7 also has not taken any affirmative acts to seek admission but rather has been residing in the

8 United States since sometime around 2013. Pet. ¶ 37; see also Kadir v. Larose, No. 25-

9 CV-1045 LL (MMP), 2025 WL 2932654, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2025) (finding that

10 when petitioner scheduled an appointment for admission at the border that clearly qualified

11 him as an applicant for admission under § 1225(b)).

12 Therefore, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not an applicant for admission under

13 §1225(b) and is entitled a bond hearing under §1226(a).

14 B. Legality of the Initial Stop

15 Petitioner raises for the first time in his Traverse that his initial stop violated 8 U.S.C.

16 § 1357(a)(2) and the implementing regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c). Traverse at 6–9. “A

17 Traverse is not the proper pleading to raise additional grounds for relief.” Cacoperdo v.

18 Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990,

19 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not consider arguments raised for the first

20 time in a reply brief.”). “In order for the [government] to be properly advised of additional

21 claims, they should be presented in an amended petition, or . . . in a statement of additional

22 grounds.” Id. However, the “district court ‘has discretion, but is not required to’ consider

23 evidence and claims raised for the first time after the filing of the petition.” Rivera v.

24 Broomfield, No. 21-CV-6520-HSG, 2023 WL 4269763, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2023)

25 (quoting Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2002)) (finding that they could exercise

26 discretion to address new arguments raised in the traverse). The Court declines to consider

27 these arguments at this time.

28

1 Petitioner argues that the ICE officers who stopped him lacked any lawful basis to

2 stop his vehicle and failed to meet the statutory prerequisites of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2),

3 which require specific statutory findings to make a warrantless arrest—probable cause and

4 a likelihood of escape. Traverse at 7. Petitioner cites to a settlement in the Northern

5 District of Illinois between the government and noncitizens who were arrested without a

6 warrant. Id.; see Castanon Nava v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 18-CV-3757, 2025 WL

7 2842146, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2025). This agreement included a “Broadcast Statement

8 of Policy” that was issued to ICE officers nationwide articulating the standards for how

9 ICE officers are to conduct warrantless arrests consistent with § 1357(a)(2). Castanon

10 Nava, 2025 WL 2842146, at *4. The terms of this settlement require ICE officers, “before

11 making a warrantless arrest,” to “have probable cause that the individual is in the United

12 States in violation of U.S. immigration law and that the individual is likely to escape before

13 a warrant can be obtained for the arrest.” Id. Further, “ICE officers must document the

14 facts and circumstances surrounding a warrantless arrest in the narrative section of the

15 foreign national’s I-213 Form as soon as practicable.” Id.

16 Here, Petitioner alleges that the ICE officers did not have reasonable suspicion to

17 stop the vehicle and did not make the statutory findings of probable cause or likelihood of

18 escape. Traverse at 7. Because this argument was raised in the Traverse, Respondents

19 have not had a chance to respond and contest these arguments. The Court declines to

20 consider this argument as it is unclear to what extent the “Broadcast Statement of Policy”

21 provides Petitioner with relief. Therefore, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

22 DENIED IN PART in so far as it requests Petitioner’s immediate release. If Petitioner

23 would like to raise this argument, Petitioner can file an amended petition to allow

24 Respondents a chance to respond.

25 / / /

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 / / /

I CONCLUSION

2 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for Writ

3 ||of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with an

4 ||individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within fourteen □□□□ days.

5 Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)

6 ||requires mandatory detention. The Court DENIES IN PART the Petition to the extent

7 || that Petitioner requests to be released from custody.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 || Dated: October 24, 2025

11 on. Janis L. Sammartino

12 United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28