Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MARIA EUGENIA ATENCIO MACHADO, Case No.: 25-cv-3277-JES-JLB

12 Petitioner,

ORDER:

13 v.

(1) GRANTING PETITION FOR

14 DIRECTOR OF THE OTAY MESA

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

DETENTION CENTER, et al.,

15 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241;

Respondents. and

16

(2) DENYING AS MOOT

17 PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

EXPEDITED REVIEW

18

19 [ECF No. 1]

20

21

22 Before the Court is Petitioner Maria Eugenia Atencio Machado’s (“Petitioner”)

23 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”).

24 Pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Respondents (the “Government”) filed a

25 Response. ECF No. 6, (“Res.”). The Court then took the matter under submission. On

26 January 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for Expedited Review (“Motion”). ECF No.

27 7. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas

28 Corpus and DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner's Motion.

1 I. BACKGROUND

2 Petitioner, a Venezuelan citizen, attempted to enter the United States but was

3 detained upon arrival, on December 7, 2023, Pet. ¶ 1. That same day, Department of

4 Homeland Security (“DHS”) initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner under

5 Section 240 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”). Res. at 1; ECF No. 6-1;

6 see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. DHS then released Petitioner “on her own recognizance.” Res. at 1.

7 Soon thereafter, Petitioner asserted claims for asylum and under the Convention Against

8 Torture (“CAT”). Res. at 1; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3).

9 Immigration Court has since held that Petitioner is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §

10 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Res. at 1. On October 9, 2025, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied

11 Petitioner’s asylum and CAT claims and ordered her removed to Venezuela. Id. at 1-2;

12 ECF No. 6-2, (“IJ Ord.”), at 1. Then on October 17, 2025, when Petitioner voluntarily

13 attended an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) appointment, she was arrested

14 and re-detained. Pet. ¶ 3; Res. at 1-2. On October 20, 2025, Petitioner filed a timely appeal

15 of the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Pet. ¶ 4; Res. at 2.

16 Accordingly, Petitioner’s asylum and CAT claim proceedings remain pending and,

17 therefore, a final order of removal has not yet been issued. Pet. ¶ 4; Res. at 2. Petitioner is

18 currently housed in the Otay Mesa Detention Center, subject to mandatory detention

19 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Pet. at 1.

20 II. LEGAL STANDARD

21 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United

22 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2).

23 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that

24 custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”

25 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus

26 to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal

27 law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means

28 of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections

1 have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). Accordingly, challenges

2 to immigration-related detention are within the purview of a district court's habeas

3 jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also Demore v. Kim, 538

4 U.S. 510, 517 (2003).

5 Habeas corpus is “perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law

6 ... affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or

7 confinement.” Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 400 (1963). “The application for the writ usurps

8 the attention and displaces the calendar of the judge or justice who entertains it and receives

9 prompt action from him within the four corners of the application.” Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d

10 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

11 III. DISCUSSION

12 Petitioner contends that Respondents’ revocation of her parole and the application

13 of 8 U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1225(b) to govern her detention violates the Fifth and Eight

14 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Pet. at 1; U.S. Const. amends. V, VIII. She,

15 therefore, seeks habeas relief, requesting that the Court order her immediate release or, in

16 the alternative, a bond determination hearing by an IJ. Pet. at 1. In their Response,

17 Respondents raise two main arguments. First, Petitioner’s claim is jurisdictionally barred

18 by Section 1252. Res. at 7-15. Alternatively, if not barred, is not yet ripe as Petitioner has

19 failed to exhaust her available administrative remedies. Id. Second, Petitioner is lawfully

20 detained under Section 1225. Id. Thus, the Court should deny the Petition. Id.

21 The Court finds that Respondents’ arguments regarding these issues appear to be

22 identical to those raised in the Court’s recent decision in Martinez Lopez v. Noem. Martinez

23 Lopez v. Noem, No: 25-cv-2717-JES-AHG, 2025 WL 3030457, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30,

24 2025). Therefore, the Court elects to follow its reasoning in Martinez Lopez and

25 incorporates it by reference. 2025 WL 3030457, at *2; see also Beltran et al. v. Noem et

26 al., No. 25CV2650-LL-DEB, 2025 WL 3078837, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025) (holding

27 the same).

28 //

1 A. Jurisdiction

2 The threshold question for the Court is whether it has jurisdiction to hear this

3 Petition. In this action, Petitioner challenges the propriety of her detention—specifically,

4 Respondents’ application of Section 1225(b)(2) to govern it—not the merits of her

5 removal, asylum or CAT claim proceedings. The Court, therefore, finds that Section 1252's

6 jurisdiction stripping provisions do not bar this Court from considering this Petition.

7 The Court also finds that the prudential administrative exhaustion requirement for

8 habeas claims, under Section 2241, is excused. Imposing this requirement would be futile

9 due to the BIA’s decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N 216 (BIA 2025) (holding

10 that Section 1225(b)(2) governs the detention of noncitizens, such as Petitioner). Thus, the

11 Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the Petition.

12 B. Petitioner’s Detention under Section 1225

13 This court, along with many others, have overwhelmingly held that Section § 1225

14 does not apply to detentions that occur after the petitioner has resided in the United States

15 for a period of time. See Martinez Lopez, 2025 WL 3030457, at *4-5 (explaining reasoning

16 and citing cases); Beltran, 2025 WL 3078837, at *4-7 (finding same).

17 Specifically, courts have applied this reasoning to situations just like Petitioner's.

18 There is no dispute that on December 7, 2023, Petitioner was paroled into the United States,

19 on her own recognizance, and has lived in the United States since that date, before she was

20 re-detained. See Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06924-EMC (EMC), 2025 WL

21 2637503, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025) (holding that Section 1226 applies to petitioner

22 who was paroled into the country on her own recognizance in June 2024 and re-detained

23 in August 2025); Sampiao v. Hyde, No. 1:25-CV-11981-JEK, 2025 WL 2607924, at *8 (D.

24 Mass. Sept. 9, 2025) (holding that Section 1226 applies to petitioner who was released at

25 border on own recognizance in October 2021 and re-detained in July 2025).

26 Accordingly, the Court holds that Section 1225 does not apply to Petitioner's

27 detention.

28 //

1 C. Procedural Due Process

2 “The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the Government from

3 depriving individuals of their life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

4 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990 (9th Cir. 2017). “[T]he Due Process Clause

5 applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is

6 lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 679.

7 Petitioner argues that the revocation of her parole violates procedural due process

8 because since being released from immigration custody, she: (1) has complied with all

9 immigration and ICE check-in requirements,; (2) does not pose a danger to the community,

10 has no criminal record, and is not a flight risk; and (3) was not given any notice, nor an

11 opportunity to be heard, prior to her parole being revoked and prior to her being re-

12 detained. Pet. ¶¶ 2-7. The Government’s Response focuses entirely on jurisdiction and

13 which statute governs Petitioner’s detention. See generally Res. It fails entirely to address

14 whether Petitioner acquired a protected liberty interest, in remaining out of immigration

15 custody, or if its conduct deprived her of such an interest, without due process of law. Id.

16 This issue was recently addressed by the undersigned in Gergawi v. Larose. No.

17 3:25-CV-3352-JES-MMP, 2025 WL 3719321, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025).

18 Therefore, the Court adopts its prior reasoning and incorporates it by reference. The Court,

19 thus, finds that: (1) Respondents released Petitioner on conditional parole, pursuant to

20 Section 1226(a)(2)(B); (2) this resulted in Petitioner’s acquisition of a protected liberty

21 interest in remaining out of immigration custody; and (3) when the Government revoked

22 Petitioner's conditional parole—without notification, reasoning, or an opportunity to be

23 heard— it violated Petitioner’s due process rights. Accordingly, the Court will grant the

24 Petition and order Petitioner’s immediate release.

25 1. Petitioner was Released on Conditional Parole

26 Section 1226 provides that during the pendency of a noncitizen’s removal

27 proceedings, they “will either be detained” or “allowed to reside in this country,” through

28 the grant of bond or conditional parole. Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S.

1 103, 108 (2020); see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a)(1)-(2). When a noncitizen is first apprehended,

2 an ICE officer makes an initial custody determination. Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189,

3 1196 (9th Cir. 2022), A noncitizen can only be released if they “demonstrate to the

4 satisfaction of the officer that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons,

5 and that the alien is likely to appear for any future proceeding.” Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. §

6 236.1(c)(8)).

7 Turing to this Petition’s facts, Respondents detained Petitioner on December 7,

8 2023, and immediately released her “on her own recognizance.” Res. at 1. The Court makes

9 three observations that, to it, connotes that Respondents released Petitioner on conditional

10 parole, pursuant to Section 1226(a)(2)(B).

11 First, Section 1225 provides that when DHS inspects “an applicant for admission”

12 and determines that they are not entitled to be admitted, the only available option to release

13 them into the country is under Section 1182(d)(5)(A). Savane v. Francis, 801 F. Supp. 3d

14 483 (S.D. N.Y. 2025); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (providing DHS discretionary authority

15 to grant noncitizens parole into the United States for “urgent humanitarian reasons”).

16 Petitioner’s DHS Notice to Appear indicates that she is not an “arriving alien” but rather

17 “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled … after an

18 inspection by an Immigration Officer.” ECF No. 6-1. Petitioner, therefore, could not be

19 released under Section 1182(d)(5)(A) because she does not meet Section 1225’s definition

20 of “an applicant for admission.” See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(a)(1), (b)(2)(A); see ECF No. 6-1.

21 Further, the notice also indicates that DHS did not issue a positive credible fear

22 determination to Petitioner. ECF No. 6-1. Therefore, Petitioner’s release could not be based

23 on “urgent humanitarian reasons.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). Thus, Petitioner was not

24 released under Section 1182(d)(5)(A).

25 Second, Petitioner asserts that she “voluntarily complied with all immigration and

26 ICE check-in requirements.” Meaning that Petitioner’s release was conditioned on terms

27 set by DHS. Pet. ¶ 2. Third, while the parties’ filings are void of any mention of a bond,

28 however, the Government states that Petitioner was released “on her own recognizance.”

1 Res. at 1.; Pet. ¶ 2; see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(B); see also Matter of Cabrera-Fernandez,

2 28 I. & N. Dec. 747, 747 (B.I.A. 2023) (“The respondents were ... released on their own

3 recognizance pursuant to DHS’ conditional parole authority under ... 8 U.S.C. §

4 1226(a)(2)(B)[.]”); Ortega-Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 2007)

5 (“It is apparent that the [government] used the phrase ‘release on recognizance’ as another

6 name for ‘conditional parole’ under § 1226(a).”). Thus, the Court finds that when Petitioner

7 was released from immigration custody, she was granted conditional parole, pursuant to 8

8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(B).

9 2. Petitioner Acquired a Constitutionally Protected Liberty Interest

10 To prevail on a “procedural due process claim,” one must establish “(1) a deprivation

11 of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate

12 procedural protections.” Miranda v. City of Casa Grande, 15 F.4th 1219, 1224 (9th Cir.

13 2021).

14 “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms

15 of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process Clause] protects.”

16 Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. This protection provides that even when an individual has had

17 substantial constraints imposed on their liberty, they still retain a protected interest in their

18 liberty. Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d 963, 970 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019). In fact, an

19 individual, whose liberty the Government may exercise its seemingly unfettered discretion

20 over, also retains such an interest. Id.; see Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972)

21 (holding same with respect to parolee’s protected liberty interest); Hurd v. D.C., Gov't, 864

22 F.3d 671, 683 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (holding that re-detention after pre-parole conditional

23 supervision requires a pre-deprivation hearing). Even when the initial custody

24 determination is solely within the government's discretion, its decision to release an

25 individual from custody creates “an implicit promise.” Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 482. A

26 promise that an individual reasonably relies on “that [their] parole will be revoked only if

27 [they] fail[] to live up to the parole conditions.” Id. Accordingly, “the liberty [of a person

28 //

1 released from immigration custody] is valuable and must be seen as within the protection

2 of the [Due Process Clause].” Id.

3 When Petitioner was initially detained, the decision to detain or release her, for the

4 pendency of her removal proceedings, was entirely within the Government’s discretion.

5 See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). In its discretion, the Government chose to release Petitioner. Res.

6 at 1. In doing so, the Government made Petitioner an “implicit promise,” upon which she

7 reasonably relied on—that her liberty would not be revoked unless she “failed to live up to

8 the conditions of her release.” See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 482.

9 Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner acquired a constitutionally protected liberty

10 interest in remaining out of immigration custody, which vested when Respondents released

11 her on conditional parole, on December 7, 2023. See Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp.3d 1025,

12 1032 (N.D. Cal July 24, 2025).

13 3. Petitioner’s Re-detention Violates Due Process

14 “Once it is determined that due process applies, the question remains what process

15 is due.” Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 481. “The root requirement of the Due Process Clause is

16 that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before [being] deprived of any

17 significant protected interest.” Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 127 (1990) (quoting

18 Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (internal quotations

19 omitted).

20 To determine constitutionally sufficient procedures to protect a liberty interest,

21 courts apply the Mathews test. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). This

22 test requires courts to balance three factors: (1) the private interest that will be affected by

23 the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the

24 procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural

25 safeguards; and (3) the Government's interest, including the function involved and the

26 fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement

27 would entail. Id.

28 //

1 The Court finds that the Mathews factors weigh in favor of it holding that the

2 Government's revocation of Petitioner's conditional parole—without first providing notice,

3 its reasoning, or an opportunity to be heard—violated her due process rights.

4 First, Petitioner has a significant liberty interest in remaining out of custody, which

5 she obtained through the Government’s grant of conditional parole. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S.

6 at 690. “The interest in being free from physical detention” is “the most elemental of liberty

7 interests.” Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 529; see United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987)

8 (“In our society liberty is the norm, and detention ... is the carefully limited exception.”);

9 see also Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1207 (2022) (“An individual's private

10 interest in freedom from prolonged detention is unquestionably substantial.”) (citations

11 omitted).

12 A liberty interest, such as Petitioner’s, is paramount and, should therefore, be

13 protected. See Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992) (“We have always been careful

14 not to minimize the importance and fundamental nature of the individual's right to liberty.”

15 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Especially when Petitioner claims that she

16 has followed all the conditions of parole and there are no allegations, let alone evidence, to

17 the contrary. Id.; see Pet. ¶ 2; see also generally Res. Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner

18 has a substantial private interest in maintaining her conditional parole, out of immigration

19 custody.

20 Second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such an interest is high. Respondents

21 revoked Petitioner's parole without providing her a reason for revocation, but most

22 importantly, without an opportunity for her to be heard. Pet. ¶ 14. This resulted in neither

23 party having an opportunity to determine whether there was any valid basis for her re-

24 detention. Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1035. Needless to say, the Government’s provision

25 of such an opportunity, would have prevented the Government’s clear error.

26 A noncitizen’s bond or parole that was granted under Section 1226(a), may be

27 revoked at any time. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(b). After revocation, the noncitizen may be re-

28 arrested under the original warrant, and re-detained. Id. However, after revoking bond or

1 parole, DHS may not re-arrest a noncitizen absent a change in circumstance. See Panosyan

2 v. Mayorkas, 854 F. App'x 787, 788 (9th Cir. 2021) (finding that a showing of change

3 circumstance is needed to re-arrest noncitizen ordered released by IJ); see also Salcedo,

4 2025 WL 2637503, at *1 (finding that Government's practice is to require a showing of

5 changed circumstances prior to re-arrest of noncitizen that was ordered released by a DHS

6 officer).

7 The Court can infer that when Petitioner was granted conditional release, she did not

8 pose a danger to the community and was not a flight risk because release may only be

9 granted upon DHS making such a finding. See 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8); see also Saravia v.

10 Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1760 (N.D. Cal. 2017). Since being released, Petitioner

11 contends that she has maintained strong family and community ties in the United States,

12 and is therefore, not a flight risk. Pet. ¶ 6. She contends further that she has not committed

13 any crimes while in this country, thus, she is still not a danger to the community. Id.

14 Respondents have failed to address Petitioner's due process arguments nor state any facts

15 that would constitute Petitioner being a danger to the community—and the Court,

16 therefore, finds that changed circumstances do not exist which show that at this time

17 Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk. See generally Res.

18 The Court does, however, identify circumstances that have changed which may

19 justify Petitioner’s re-arrest. On October 9, 2025, an IJ denied Petitioner’s asylum and CAT

20 claims, and ordered her removed to Venezuela. See IJ Ord. at 1-3. Had Petitioner waived

21 her right to appeal or failed to file an appeal by November 10, 2025, Petitioner’s order of

22 removal would be deemed administratively final. See Garcia v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 789, 798

23 (9th Cir. 2015). The occurrence of either event would constitute changed circumstances

24 that authorize Respondents to re-arrest Petitioner to effectuate her removal. See 8 U.S.C. §

25 1231

26 However, Petitioner did not waive her right and filed a timely appeal. IJ Ord. at 9;

27 ECF No. 6-3. Therefore, when Respondents rearrested Petitioner on October 17, 2025, they

28 did so in the absence of any changed circumstances that could justify their conduct. A pre-

1 determination hearing would have easily clarified that revocation of Petitioner’s parole,

2 based on the IJ’s decision, was premature and unlawful. Accordingly, the Court finds that,

3 here, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty is high.

4 Third, the Government's interest in detaining Petitioner without notice, reasoning,

5 and a hearing is low. See Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1038-39; see also Ortega, 415 F. Supp.

6 3d at 970 (“If the government wishes to re-arrest [Petitioner] at any point, it has the power

7 to take steps toward doing so; but its interest in doing so without a hearing is low.”);

8 Alvarenga Matute v. Wofford, --- F. Supp. 3d. ----, 2025 WL 2817795, *6 (E.D. Cal. 2025).

9 The Government fail to point to any burden it if had provided proper notice, reasoning, and

10 a pre-deprivation hearing. See generally Res.

11 Accordingly, the Court joins its numerous sister courts in finding that Petitioner’s

12 detention is unlawful because when the Government re-detained her, it revoked her

13 conditional release in violation of the Due Process Clause. See Gergawi, 2025 WL

14 3719321, at *3-4; Pinchi, 792 F.Supp.3d at 1038 (holding same); Alegria Palma v. LaRose,

15 25-cv-1942-BJC-MMP, ECF No. 14 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2025) (granting a TRO based on

16 a procedural due process challenge to a revocation of parole without a pre-deprivation

17 hearing); Sanchez v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2396-JES-MMP, 2025 WL 2770629, at *5 (S.D.

18 Cal. Sept. 26, 2025) (granting a writ of habeas corpus releasing petitioner from custody to

19 the conditions of her preexisting parole on due process grounds).

20 D. Eighth Amendment Claim and Motion for Expedited Review

21 Having granted the Petition, on the merits, the Court declines to address Petitioner’s

22 Eighth Amendment claim. On January 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a Motion for Expedited

23 Review (“Motion”). ECF No. 7. In light of the Court’s ruling on the Petitioner, it DENIES

24 AS MOOT the Motion.

25 IV. CONCLUSION

26 For the reasons discussed above:

27 (1) The Court GRANTS Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

28 U.S.C. § 2241;

l (2) Because the Court GRANTS the Petition and concludes that

2 Respondents’ revocation of Petitioner's conditional parole violates

3 procedural due _ process, Respondents are ORDERED to

4 IMMEDIATELY release Petitioner from custody, subject to any

5 conditions of her preexisting conditional parole;

6 (3) The Court DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Motion for Expedited

7 Review;

8 (4) The Parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report on or before

9 January 20, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released; and

10 (5) Upon receipt of the Joint Status Report, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED

11 to CLOSE this case.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 || Dated: January 16, 2026

14 Str],

15 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr.

16 United States District Judge

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28