# LaRose

> District Court, S.D. California · December 2, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11213772

## Case

- **Full name:** Mariela Alatorre Rodriguez v. Christopher J. Larose, Senior Warden, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** December 2, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11213772

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that the 2 phrase “arriving in the United States” and its “use of the present progressive, like use of 3 the present participle . . . denotes an ongoing process”
- holding that 2 “§ 1226(a) must be construed as requiring the Attorney General to provide the [noncitizen] 3 with such a hearing”

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARIELA ALATORRE RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02940-RBM-JLB

12 Petitioner,
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden,
[Docs. 1, 10]
et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
17
18 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Mariela Alatorre Rodriguez’s (“Petitioner”)
19 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging
20 the lawfulness of her detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security
21 (“DHS”). (Doc. 1.) For the reasons below, the Petition is GRANTED.
22 I. BACKGROUND
23 A. Factual Background
24 Petitioner entered the United States without inspection when she was a child on or
25 about July 15, 1991. (Doc. 1 at 6; Doc. 6 at 17.)1 DHS issued her a Notice to Appear on
26
27
28
1 March 10, 2009, charging her with removability under § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration
2 and Nationality Act. (Doc. 6 at 17.) At some point before August 20, 2025, Petitioner was
3 detained by DHS. (See Doc. 1 at 14.) On August 20, 2025, an immigration judge ordered
4 Petitioner released from immigration custody on a $1,500 bond. (Id. at 1, 14–15.) DHS
5 appealed this determination in light of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) recent
6 decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216, 216 (BIA 2025). (See id. at
7 14–15.) The BIA sustained the appeal, vacated the immigration judge’s bond decision,
8 and ordered Petitioner detained without bond. (Id. at 15.) Aside from these facts, the fact
9 that Petitioner has no criminal record (id. at 8), and the nearly 20 letters of support in the
10 record from Petitioner’s family and friends (id. at 20–52), the Parties’ filings provide no
11 more background.
12 B. Procedural Background
13 On October 30, 2025, Petitioner filed the Petition against Christopher LaRose, Kristi
14 Noem, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Gegory Archambeault, United States Immigration and
15 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and DHS (collectively, “Respondents”). (Doc. 1.) The
16 same day, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 2). On November
17 5, 2025, the Court granted the Motion for Appointment of Counsel and ordered
18 Respondents to show cause why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written
19 response. (Doc. 4 at 2–4.) On November 17, 2025, Respondents filed their Return to
20 Habeas Petition (“Response”). (Doc. 6.) On November 28, 2025, Petitioner filed her
21 Traverse (“Reply”).2
22
23
24 2 Petitioner was ordered to “file a reply on or before November 20, 2025 at 4:30 p.m.”
25 (Doc. 4 at 2) (emphasis in original). However, in her Motion to Shorten Time, Petitioner
represents that “because the minute entry [appointing counsel] did not specifically state
26
that Federal Defenders was being appointed, it was not flagged by [their] office and was
27 not assigned to an attorney. The attorneys working on § 2241 habeas learned about the
Court’s order on November 25.” (Doc. 10 at 1–2.) In light of Petitioner’s representations,
28
1 II. LEGAL STANDARD
2 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
3 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2).
4 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
5 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
6 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may
7 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
8 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the
9 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
10 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3).
11 III. DISCUSSION
12 Petitioner argues that her detention is unlawful because she is subject to
13 discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not mandatory detention under § 1225.
14 (Doc. 1 at 2–3, 6–8.) Respondents argue that Petitioner: (1) is jurisdictionally barred from
15 bringing her claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) and § 1252(b)(9); (2) failed to exhaust
16 administrative remedies; and (3) is legally detained under the mandatory detention
17 provisions of § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. 6 at 6–14.)
18 A. Jurisdiction
19 As the Court has an obligation “to determine that [it has] jurisdiction before
20 proceeding to the merits” of any case, it will first address Respondents’ jurisdictional
21 arguments. Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 (2007); see Steel Co. v. Citizens for a
22 Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94–95 (1998). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds
23 that it has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims.
24 Respondents argue first that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this Petition under
25 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). (Doc. 6 at 6–8.) This statutory bar against judicial review precludes
26 the Court from exercising jurisdiction over the Attorney General’s decision to “commence
27 proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any [noncitizen].”
28 8 U.S.C § 1252(g). The Supreme Court has narrowly interpreted § 1252(g) as applying
1 “only to [those] three discrete actions that the Attorney General may take.” Reno v. Am.-
2 Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999) (emphasis omitted) (quoting
3 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)).
4 Petitioner does not challenge the decision to commence removal proceedings or any
5 act to execute a removal order. Rather, she challenges her ongoing detention on the
6 purported basis that she is subject to mandatory detention. (Doc. 1 at 2, 6–7.) She is thus
7 enforcing her “constitutional rights to due process in the context of the removal
8 proceedings—not the legitimacy of the removal proceedings or any removal order.”
9 Garcia v. Noem, Case No.: 25-cv-02180-DMS-MMP, 2025 WL 2549431, at *4 (S.D. Cal.
10 Sept. 3, 2025) (emphasis in original); see Chavez v. Noem, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL
11 2730228, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2025) (finding the same); United States v. Hovespian,
12 359 F.3d 1144, 1155 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting a “district court may consider a purely legal
13 question that does not challenge the Attorney General’s discretionary authority, even if the
14 answer to that legal question . . . forms the backdrop against which the Attorney General
15 later will exercise discretionary authority”). Therefore, § 1252(g) does not strip the Court
16 of jurisdiction.
17 Respondents argue second that Petitioner’s claims “necessarily arise” from the
18 Attorney General’s decision to commence removal proceedings against her. (Doc. 6 at 7.)
19 This interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) would “eliminate judicial review of immigration
20 [detainees’] claims of unlawful detention . . . inconsistent with Jennings v. Rodriguez and
21 the history of judicial review of the detention of noncitizens under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”
22 Sanchez v. LaRose, Case No.: 25-cv-2396-JES-MMP, 2025 WL 2770629, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
23 Sept. 26, 2025) (citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 294 (2018)); Zadvydas v.
24 Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001); Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1209 (9th Cir.
25 2022)). Accordingly, as other courts in this District have found in similar cases, the Court
26 has jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s claims that her detention is unlawful under 28 U.S.C.
27 § 2241. See Sanchez, 2025 WL 2770629, at *2; Noori v. LaRose, Case No.: 25-cv-1824-
28 GPC-MSB, 2025 WL 2800149, at *6–7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025).
1 Respondents argue third that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) bars judicial review of
2 Petitioner’s claims because Petitioner is challenging the basis upon which she is detained,
3 and the exclusive means of judicial review of such claims is a petition for review to a court
4 of appeals. (Doc. 6 at 8–10 (citing Reno, 525 U.S. at 483).) Section 1252(b)(9) provides
5 that judicial review of “all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and
6 application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or
7 proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter shall
8 be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section.”
9 Section 1252(b)(9) was “intended to ‘channel judicial review over final orders of
10 removal to the courts of appeals,’ not ‘foreclose all judicial review of agency actions’
11 touching on deportation proceedings writ large.” Salvador v. Bondi, Case No. 2:25-cv-
12 07946-MRA-MAA, 2025 WL 2995055, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2025) (quoting J.E.F.M.
13 v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original)). The Supreme Court
14 has “explained that practically any question of fact or law related to immigration detention
15 technically ‘aris[es] from’ actions taken to remove a noncitizen ‘in the sense that the
16 [noncitizen’s] injuries would never have occurred if they had not been placed in
17 detention.’” Salvador, 2025 WL 2995055, at *4 (quoting Jennings, 583 U.S. at 293). But
18 “cramming judicial review of those questions into the review of final removal orders would
19 be absurd.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 293. In rejecting such an expansive interpretation of
20 § 1252(b)(9), the Jennings court reasoned:
21 Interpreting ‘arising from’ in this extreme way would . . . make claims of
[unlawful] detention effectively unreviewable. By the time a final order of
22
removal was eventually entered, the allegedly [unlawful] detention would
23 have already taken place. And of course, it is possible that no such order
would ever be entered in a particular case, depriving that detainee of any
24
meaningful chance for judicial review.
25
Id. at 293.
26

27 This logic applies equally here. As discussed above, Petitioner challenges the
28 legality of her continued detention rather than a final order of removal. Accordingly,
1 § 1252(b)(9) does not strip this Court of jurisdiction. See Salvador, 2025 WL 2995055, at
2 *5 (rejecting similar argument under § 1252(b)(9)); Noori, 2025 WL 2800149, at *7
3 (same).
4 B. Exhaustion
5 Respondents also argue that the Court “should ensure Petitioner properly exhausts
6 administrative remedies.” (Doc. 6 at 10 n.1.) “Exhaustion can be either statutorily or
7 judicially required.” Acevedo-Carranza v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 539, 541 (9th Cir. 2004).
8 Although 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “does not specifically require petitions to exhaust direct appeals
9 before filing petitions for habeas corpus,” the Ninth Circuit “require[s], as a prudential
10 matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust available judicial and administrative remedies
11 before seeking relief under § 2241.” Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir.
12 2001). The Court “may waive the prudential exhaustion requirement if administrative
13 remedies are inadequate or not efficacious, pursuit of administrative remedies would be a
14 futile gesture, irreparable injury will result, or the administrative proceedings would be
15 void.” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 988 (9th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).
16 “The Court, following other courts in this District, finds that exhaustion would be
17 futile because the [BIA] is obligated to apply the binding precedent of Matter of Yajure
18 Hurtado, 29 I & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025) to find that detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1225(b)(2).” Esquivel-Ipina v. LaRose, Case No.: 25-CV-2672 JLS (BLM), 2025 WL
20 2998361, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2025); see also Garcia, 2025 WL 2549431, at *4–5
21 (same); Chavez, 2025 WL 2730228, at *3–4 (same).
22 C. Mandatory or Discretionary Detention
23 The statutory provision governing Petitioner’s detention determines what
24 procedures Respondents must follow. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), noncitizens are subject
25 to mandatory detention without eligibility for bond. “Under § 1226(a), noncitizens are
26 entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether they pose a
27 flight risk or danger to the community.” Ledesma Gonzalez v. Bostock, CASE NO. 2:25-
28 cv-01404-JNW-GJL, 2025 WL 2841574, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 7, 2025); Casas-
1 Castrillon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942, 951 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that
2 Ҥ 1226(a) must be construed as requiring the Attorney General to provide the [noncitizen]
3 with such a hearing”), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Avilez v. Garland, 69
4 F.4th 525, 535 (9th Cir. 2023). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that
5 Petitioner is subject to the procedures set forth in § 1226(a).
6 1. Mandatory Detention Under § 1225
7 Section 1225 applies to noncitizens who are “applicants for admission.” An
8 applicant for admission is a noncitizen “who ‘arrives in the United States,’ or ‘is present’
9 in this country but ‘has not been admitted.’” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 287 (quoting 8 U.S.C.
10 § 1225(a)(1)). All applicants for admission “shall be inspected by immigration officers”
11 to assess whether they may be admitted. § 1225(a)(3). “[I]f the examining immigration
12 officer determines that [a noncitizen] seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt
13 entitled to be admitted, the [noncitizen] shall be detained.” § 1225(b)(2)(A). Other than
14 for a limited exception under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) for parole “for urgent humanitarian
15 reasons or significant public benefit,” which is not implicated here, detention under
16 § 1225(b)(2) is mandatory. Sequen v. Albarran, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 2935630, at
17 *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2025) (noting that “noncitizens subject to 1225(b)(2) . . . are subject
18 to mandatory detention while their full removal proceedings are pending”).
19 2. Discretionary Detention Under § 1226
20 Section 1226 applies to noncitizens who are “detained pending a decision on whether
21 the [noncitizen] is to be removed from the United States.” Section 1226 affords the
22 government significant discretion; so long as the detained noncitizen is not covered by
23 § 1226(c), the Attorney General may release the noncitizen on “bond” or “conditional
24 parole.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(1)–(2). Such release is proper where the noncitizen “satisfies
25 [the government] that [she] will not pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of
26 property and is likely to appear for any scheduled proceeding.” § 1226(a)(4). If a
27 noncitizen wishes to contest the initial custody determination, the denial or amount of bond,
28 she has a right to do so before an immigration judge. 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1).
1 3. Petitioner is Subject to § 1226
2 The Court agrees with the multitude of district court opinions that have concluded
3 “a proper understanding of the relevant statutes, in light of their plain text, overall structure,
4 and . . . case law interpreting them, compels the conclusion that § 1225’s provisions for
5 mandatory detention of noncitizens ‘seeking admission’ [do] not apply to someone like
6 [Petitioner],” who has been residing in the United States for over 30 years. See Lopez
7 Benitez v. Francis, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 2371588, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025).
8 The statutory text—and its interpretation by the great weight of district courts to
9 have considered it3—establishes that Petitioner was detained under § 1226. Section
10 1225(b)(2)(A) states: “in the case of [a noncitizen] who is an applicant for admission, if
11 the examining immigration officer determines that [a noncitizen] seeking admission is not
12 clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the [noncitizen] shall be detained for a
13 proceeding under section 1229a of this title.” Thus, for § 1225(b)(2)(A) to apply, a
14 noncitizen must be: “(1) an applicant for admission; (2) seeking admission; and (3) not
15 clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” Martinez v. Hyde, 792 F. Supp. 3d
16 211, 214 (D. Mass. 2025).
17 The Rodriguez court extensively analyzed which statute governs noncitizens in
18 circumstances like Petitioner’s. 2025 WL 2782499, at *16–24. It held that noncitizens
19 who entered the United States without inspection but have been “residing in the United
20 States” and were “not apprehended upon arrival” are governed by § 1226. Id. at *16–17,
21 19, 21. The court reasoned that § 1225(b)(2) requires that the noncitizen be “seeking
22 admission,” language that “necessarily implies some sort of present-tense action.” Id. at
23

24
25 3 See Quispe v. Crawford, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-1471-AJT-LRV, 2025 WL
2783799, at *6 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2025) (“Petitioner’s detention is governed by
26
§ 1226(a)’s discretionary framework, not § 1225(b)’s mandatory detention procedures, as
27 at least thirty federal district courts around the country . . . have concluded.”); Rodriguez
v. Bostock, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 n.3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025)
28
1 *22 (citing Al Otro Lado v. Wolf, 952 F.3d 999, 1011 (9th Cir. 2020) (finding that the
2 phrase “arriving in the United States” and its “use of the present progressive, like use of
3 the present participle . . . denotes an ongoing process”) (emphasis in original), cert. granted
4 No. 25-5, 2025 WL 3198572, at *1 (U.S. Nov. 17, 2025)).
5 This Court finds the reasoning in Rodriguez persuasive and adopts it here. Petitioner
6 had been residing in the United States for over 30 years at the time of her arrest in 2025.
7 (Doc. 1 at 6.) She “has not taken any affirmative act, such as submitting an application for
8 admission to the United States.” Castro v. LaRose, 25-cv-2645-BAS-BJW, ECF No. 12,
9 at *7 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2025). She “was not arrested at the border or a port of entry
10 where [she] was subject to inspection. Instead, [she] was arrested . . . while already in the
11 United States, and thus, is subject to Section 1226.” Id.; accord Martinez, 792 F. Supp. 3d
12 at 223 (concluding that because the petitioner had already been residing in the United States
13 for years when she was detained, “Section 1225(b)(2)(A) . . . simply had no application to
14 her case”). Because an immigration judge found Petitioner had shown she was not a danger
15 to persons or property or a flight risk provided she posted a $1,500 bond, and because
16 DHS’s appeal arguing otherwise defies statutory construction, Petitioner is being held in
17 violation of federal law. 4 Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED.5
18
19
4 Additionally, the United States District Court for the Central District of California
20
recently issued an order certifying a nationwide class of noncitizens “who (1) have entered
21 or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended
upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c),
22
§ 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time [DHS] makes an initial custody determination.”
23 Bautista v. Santacruz Jr., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3288403, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25,
2025). The court also granted the named petitioners’ motion for partial summary judgment
24
and held that class members are detained under § 1226 rather than § 1225. See generally
25 Bautista, 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025), ECF No. 81. The court
“extend[ed] the same declaratory relief granted to [the named petitioners] to the
26
[nationwide class] as a whole.” Bautista, 2025 WL 3288403, at *9. For the reasons
27 discussed in this Order, Petitioner is a member of this class and entitled to the same relief.

28
l IV. CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Shorten Time (Doc. 10) and the Petition
3 ||(Doc. 1) are GRANTED. Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED to immediately
4 ||release Petitioner from custody, subject to the same bond and conditions of release as
5 || ordered by the immigration judge on August 20, 2025. (See Doc. | at 14.)
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 |}DATE: December 2, 2025
eet Borrnucle, Moittaryyes >
9 ON. RUTH BERM@DEZ! MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ||
28 ll that an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary.
10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11213772. Public record. Not legal advice.