The opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 Rogelio TORRES VELASQUEZ, Case No.: 25-cv-3046-AGS-DEB
4 Petitioner, AMENDED ORDER REQUIRING
RESPONSE
5 v.
6 Kristi NOEM, et al.,
7 Respondents.
8
9 Petitioner Rogelio Torres Velasquez seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
10 § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim
11 that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254
12 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it
13 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
14 to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting use of those Rules to any “habeas corpus petition”).
15 In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are
16 clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024)
17 (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or
18 incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id.
19 Torres Velasquez alleges that he’s been in immigration custody since “August 26,
20 2025.” (ECF 1, at 2.) He claims to be subject to mandatory detention and denied a
21 “meaningful opportunity for an individualized bond redetermination hearing” per 8 U.S.C.
22 § 1225(b). (ECF 1, at 8.) This is because a Board of Immigration Appeals’ opinion in
23 “Matter of Yajure Hurtado” “eliminat[ed] Immigration Judge jurisdiction to redetermine
24 custody for” “noncitizens who entered without inspection,” subjecting them “to mandatory
25 detention.” (ECF 1, at 5.) Petitioner charges that detention based on Yajure Hurtado
26 “violates the plain text of the INA, decades of longstanding agency practice, and the
27 constitutional guarantees of Due Process.” (Id. at 2.)
28
1 This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Functionally
2 ||identical cases across the country have been found to have a “likelihood of success on the
3 ||merits” or have resulted in the writ being issued. See, e.g., Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 5:25-
4 || cv-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) (“[T]he Court
5 || concludes that petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because section
6 || 1226(a), not section 1225(b)(2), likely governs their detention.”); Vazquez v. Feeley, No.
7 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (same);
8 ||see also Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1
9 ||(W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (“Every district court to address this question has concluded
10 |/that the government’s position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons of statutory
11 |/interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”); Quispe v.
12 || Crawford, No. 1:25-cv-1471-AJT-LRV, 2025 WL 2783799, at *6 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29,
13 |}2025) (“Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226(a)’s discretionary framework, not
14 1225(b)’s mandatory detention procedures, as at least thirty federal district courts around
15 || the country, including two in this Circuit, have concluded when faced with habeas petitions
16 || from comparably situated petitioners.”).
17 By November 26, 2025, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by
18 || petitioner must be filed by December 10, 2025. The Court will hold oral arguments on the
19 || petition on December 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The Court’s November 12, 2025 order (ECF
20 || 2) is stricken.
21 Dated: November 13, 2025
23 Hon. rew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28