# Casey

> District Court, S.D. California · January 16, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11266141

## Case

- **Full name:** Roman Amador Urbieta Nieto v. Jeremy Casey, Senior Warden, Imperial Detention Center, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** January 16, 2026
- **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/11266141

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ROMAN AMADOR URBIETA NIETO, Case No.: 26-cv-0186-GPC-AHG
12 Petitioner,
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
14 JEREMY CASEY, Senior Warden,
[ECF No. 1]
Imperial Detention Center, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
17
On January 12, 2026, Petitioner Roman Amador Urbieta Nieto (“Petitioner”) filed a
18
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from
19
custody. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed a return to the petition on January 16,
20
2026. ECF No. 3 (“Ret.”). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the petition for
21
a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also VACATES the hearing set for January 23, 2026.
22
BACKGROUND
23
Petitioner is a Mexican national who entered the United States over 20 years ago.
24
Pet. ¶¶ 5, 19. On September 8, 2025, Petitioner was detained by Respondents at the
25
Imperial Regional Detention Center and was placed in removal proceedings pursuant to 8
26
U.S.C. § 1229a. Id. He has remained in custody since that time. Id. ¶ 1. On January 7, 2026,
27
1 an immigration judge found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s request for
2 custody redetermination. ECF No. 1-3. The immigration judge also issued an alternative
3 finding, which granted a bond of $2000 if the court did have jurisdiction. Id.
4 On January 12, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No.
5 1. The Petition asserts that Petitioner’s detention violates the Immigration and Nationality
6 Act (“INA”) and the judgement in Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM,
7 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). Pet. ¶¶ 26-30. Thus, Petitioner requests a
8 writ of habeas corpus ordering Petitioner’s release, an award of attorneys’ fees to
9 Petitioner, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
10 DISCUSSION
11 I. Legal Standard
12 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a writ of habeas corpus may be granted to any petitioner
13 who demonstrates that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
14 of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 473 (2004).
15 The writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
16 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004).
17 As explained by the Supreme Court, “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a
18 person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the
19 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484
20 (1973); Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2023) (habeas actions limited to
21 challenges of the legality or duration of confinement). A habeas petitioner bears the burden
22 of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
23 of the United States.” See Espinoza v. Sabol, 558 F.3d 83, 89 (1st Cir. 2009).
24 II. Merits: Whether the INA Subjects Petitioner to Mandatory Detention
25 The habeas petition raises an issue of statutory construction as to whether the
26 Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) subjects all applicants for admission, even non-
27
1 citizens who entered without admission or inspection and have resided in the United States
2 for years without lawful status, to mandatory detention for the duration of their immigration
3 proceedings. If so, an immigration judge would lack the authority to entertain a bond
4 request. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
5 Respondents have also acknowledged that pursuant to Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz,
6 No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 3289861 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20,
7 2025) Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to a bond hearing. Ret.
8 at 1. 1 However, Respondents reserve the right to supplement its response in the event of a
9 stay of enforcement of the Bautista final judgment, appellate relief, or a change in DHS
10 policy. Id. Given the reservation, the Court will conduct a full analysis of the issue.
11 1. U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and § 1226(a)
12 Noncitizens are detained during removal proceedings under two statutes: 8 U.S.C.
13 §§ 1225 and 1226. Section 1225 governs inspection by immigration officers and expedited
14 removal proceedings for “applicants for admission” who are defined as an “alien present
15 in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States.” 8
16 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). An applicant for admission “seeking admission or readmission to or
17 transit through the United States” is inspected by immigration officers. Id. § 1225(a)(3). If
18 an applicant is deemed inadmissible after inspection, the applicant will be subject to
19 expedited removal “without further hearing or review,” unless an intention to apply for
20 asylum is indicated where the applicant would then be referred for a credible fear interview.
21 Id. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii). For other applicants for admission, “if the examining
22 immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a
23 doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section
24 1229a.” Id. § 1225(b)(2)(A). A limited exception provides that a “noncitizen detained
25
26
1 Page numbers are based on the CM/ECF pagination.
27
1 under [s]ection 1225(b)(2) may be released if she is paroled ‘for urgent humanitarian
2 reasons or significant public benefit’ pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).” Jennings v.
3 Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 300 (2018). Otherwise, “detention under § 1225(b)(2) is
4 considered mandatory . . . [and] [i]ndividuals detained under § 1225 are not entitled to a
5 bond hearing.” Lepe v. Andrews, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2025 WL 2716910, at *3 (E.D. Cal.
6 Sept. 23, 2025) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lopez Benitez v. Francis, -- F.
7 Supp. 3d --, 2025 WL 2371588, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025)).
8 In contrast, § 1226 addresses apprehension and detention of aliens and generally
9 governs the process of arresting and detaining aliens present in the United States, including
10 aliens who were inadmissible at the time of entry. Jennings, 583 U.S. at 288. Section 1226
11 states, “[o]n a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and
12 detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.”
13 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Section 1226(c), however, “carves out a statutory category of aliens
14 who may not be released under § 1226(a),” which focuses on those who are inadmissible
15 or deportable because of certain crimes. Jennings, 583 U.S. at 296-97; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a),
16 (c).
17 “When a person is apprehended under § 1226(a), an ICE officer makes the initial
18 custody determination,” Rodriguez Diaz, 53 F.4th 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing 8
19 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8)), where the noncitizen “must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
20 officer that such release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the alien
21 is likely to appear for any future proceeding.”). After a decision has been made, the
22 noncitizen may request a bond hearing before an immigration judge. 8 C.F.R. §
23 236.1(d)(1). At the bond hearing, “the burden is on the non-citizen to ‘establish to the
24 satisfaction of the Immigration Judge . . . that he or she does not present a danger to persons
25 or property, is not a threat to the national security, and does not pose a risk of flight.’”
26 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing In re Guerra, 24 I. & N.
27
1 Dec. 37, 38 (BIA 2006)). “Section 1226(a), therefore, establishes a discretionary detention
2 framework.” Otilio B.F. v. Andrews, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2025 WL 3152480, at *5 (E.D. Cal.
3 Nov. 11, 2025) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
4 2. Statutory Interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)
5 “The starting point for our interpretation of a statute is always its language.” Cmty.
6 for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 739 (1989) (citation omitted). “But
7 oftentimes the meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become
8 evident when placed in context.” King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 486 (2015) (internal
9 quotation marks and citation omitted). In doing so, “a court ‘must interpret the statute as a
10 whole, giving effect to each word and making every effort not to interpret a provision in a
11 manner that renders other provisions of the same statute inconsistent, meaningless or
12 superfluous.’” Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404, 410–11 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).
13 i. Plain Meaning of § 1225(b)(2)
14 The dispute rests on whether § 1225(b)(2) applies to Petitioner. Section 1225(b)(2)
15 provides, in pertinent part, “in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the
16 examining officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a
17 doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)
18 (emphasis added). Petitioner argues that his proceedings should be governed by § 1226(a).
19 Pet. ¶ 27.
20 The term “seeking admission” is not defined under § 1225. As many cases in this
21 District and this Circuit have found, “seeking admission” is best understood to require “an
22 affirmative act such as entering the United States or applying for status.” See Mosqueda v.
23 Noem, No. 25-CV-2304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025);
24 see also Esquivel-Ipina v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2672 JLS (BLM), 2025 WL 2998361, at *5
25 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2025); Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-CV-05240-TMC, 2025 WL
26 2782499, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025) (“Every district court to address this question
27
1 has concluded that the government's position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons
2 of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.”). Here,
3 Petitioner was not “seeking admission” within this interpretation. He was arrested in the
4 interior of the United States, not while presenting himself at the gate of entry to attempt to
5 apply for admission.
6 ii. Government's Longstanding Practice
7 The Court’s interpretation is further supported by the enforcement agency’s past
8 interpretation of §§ 1225(b) and 1226. Prior to enactment of the Illegal Immigration
9 Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) governing expedited and
10 regular removal proceedings, handling of asylum claims, and other activities involving the
11 apprehension, detention, hearing of claims and ultimately the removal of inadmissible and
12 deportable aliens, the term “seeking admission” was confined to aliens arriving at the port
13 of entry under the prior § 1225. See Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216, 223
14 (BIA 2025). After the IIRIRA was enacted, DHS’s predecessor agency, the U.S.
15 Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), “detained arriving aliens” under §
16 1225(b), but “[n]oncitizens who were present without admission were detained under the
17 discretionary rules of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” Inspection and Expedited Removal of Aliens;
18 Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal Proceedings; Asylum Procedures,
19 62 Fed. Reg. 10312-01, 10323, 1997 WL 93131 (Mar. 6, 1997) (“Despite being applicants
20 for admission, aliens who are present without having been admitted or paroled (formerly
21 referred to as aliens who entered without inspection) will be eligible for bond and bond
22 redetermination.”). In arriving at this application, the INS did not find it necessary to
23 interpret “seeking admission.”
24 This longstanding practice from 1997 through 2025 requires the Court to afford due
25 respect to Executive Branch interpretations of §§ 1225(b) and 1226(a). See Edwards’
26 Lessee v. Darby, 25 U.S. 206, 210 (1827) (“In the construction of a doubtful and ambiguous
27
1 law, the contemporaneous construction of those who were called upon to act under the law,
2 and were appointed to carry its provisions into effect, is entitled to very great respect.”).2
3 The U.S. Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo observed that “[s]uch respect
4 was thought especially warranted when an Executive Branch interpretation was issued
5 roughly contemporaneously with enactment of the statute and remained consistent over
6 time.” 603 U.S. 369, 386 (2024). That is because “the longstanding ‘practice of the
7 government, [ ] can inform [a court’s] determination of ‘what the law is[.]’” NLRB v. Noel
8 Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 525 (2014) (first quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316,
9 401 (1819); then quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803)).
10 On July 10, 2025, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Memorandum was issued
11 titled “Detention of Applicants for Admission.” See https://www.cbp.gov/document/foia-
12 record/detention-applicants-admission. The Memorandum indicated that DHS, in
13 coordination with the DOJ, “revisited its legal position” on the INA and determined that §
14 1225, rather than § 1226, is the applicable immigration authority for an “applicant for
15 admission” including an alien present in the U.S. “who has not been admitted . . . whether
16
17
18 2 Hurtado noted that respect for this longstanding practice initiated by INS in 1997 was
unwarranted because the policy only applies to a “doubtful and ambiguous law” and
19
finding that the INA text is clear and not ambiguous. Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N.
20 Dec. 216, 226 (BIA 2025). Yet the panel acknowledged that the issue of statutory
construction of the INA is complicated by a patchwork of statutes implemented at different
21
times and intended to address different issues. Id. at 227. Here, Petitioner claims that the
22 statute is plain and that its interpretation is the reasonable one. Yet interpretation of §
1225(b)(2) is complicated due to the complex set of legal provisions and the term “seeking
23
admission” is surrounded by enough ambiguity that giving weight to the “longstanding”
24 application of this interpretation is warranted. The Court also takes into account the
congressional failure to revise or repeal the agency’s interpretation. See N.L.R.B. v. Bell
25
Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron Inc., 416 U.S. 267, 274-75 (1974). Congress would have
26 had the opportunity to do so when it enacted the Laken Riley Act which created the §
1226(c) mandatory detention provisions for certain criminal aliens.
27
1 or not at a designated port of arrival.” Id. It stated that “it is the position of DHS that
2 applicants for admission are subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b) and may
3 not be released from DHS custody except by INA § 212(d)(5) parole.” Id. The
4 Memorandum further provides that for custody purposes, “these aliens are now treated in
5 the same manner that ‘arriving aliens’ have historically been treated. The only aliens
6 eligible for a custody determination and release on recognizance, bond, or condition parole
7 under INA § 236(a) are aliens admitted to the United States and chargeable with
8 deportability under INA § 237, with the exception of those subject to mandatory detention
9 under INA § 236(c).” Id. This new legal position was provided to ICE employees in an
10 “Interim Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission.” See
11 Bethancourt Soto v. Soto, --F. Supp. 3d--, 2025 WL 2976572, at *2 n.1 (D.N.J. Oct. 22,
12 2025) (quoting Vasquez v. Feeley, --F. Supp. 3d--, 2025 2676082, at *5 n.2 (D. Nev. Sept.
13 17, 2025)).
14 The Memorandum does not address the “seeking admission” language that is at core
15 of the dispute, nor did it justify the changed position given the prior longstanding
16 application of the statute. In fact, the Government has acknowledged in other recent cases
17 that prior to the issuance of the July 10, 2025 Memorandum, a non-citizen who had lived
18 here at the time of the detention would have been eligible for a bond hearing. See generally
19 Zumba v. Bondi, Civ. No. 25-cv-14626 (KSH), 2025 WL 2753496, at *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 26,
20 2025) (“Respondents readily admit that if petitioner had been arrested on the basis of her
21 inadmissibility prior to July 8, 2025, she would have been discretionarily detained under 8
22 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and eligible for a bond hearing.”).
23 Given the Government’s longstanding interpretation of §§ 1225(b) and 1226(a), the
24 Court is further persuaded that “seeking admission” applies to arriving noncitizens and not
25 those who entered without inspection and have lived in the United States for years.
26 / / /
27
1 iii. Statutory Canons of Interpretation
2 In addition, a potential new interpretation of § 1225(b)(1) “violates the rule against
3 surplusage and negates the plain meaning of the text.” Quijada Cordoba v. Knight, --F.
4 Supp. 3d--, 2025 WL 3228945, at *6 (D. Id. Nov. 19, 2025) (citations omitted). First, the
5 “interpretation of ‘seeking admission’ as [equivalent to “applicant for admission”] would
6 seemingly render that phrase mere surplusage, such that the language could be deleted
7 while retaining the same statutory meaning.” Lopez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Det. Ctr., No.
8 25-CV-2527-RSH-SBC, 2025 WL 3005346, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025). This
9 interpretation runs counter to the interpretative canon that effect should be given to all
10 statutory provisions. Therefore, the more apt interpretation in alignment with the canon
11 must, instead, account for “seeking admission” as an additional requirement to those
12 identified as “applicants for admission.”
13 Second, that “new” interpretation blurs the lines between § 1225(b) and § 1226(a).
14 As made clear in Jennings, “U.S. immigration law authorizes the government to detain
15 certain aliens seeking admission into the country under §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2). It also
16 authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens already in the country pending the
17 outcome of removal proceedings under §§ 1226(a) and (c).” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 289. The
18 Supreme Court thereby interprets § 1225(b) to apply to “aliens seeking admission to the
19 country,” while § 1226(a) applies to “aliens already in the country.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at
20 289. Here, Petitioner is sensibly characterized as a noncitizen “already in the country”
21 rather than one “seeking admission.” Indeed, “[t]he overwhelming majority of courts to
22 address the issue have agreed that Section 1226(a), rather than the mandatory detention
23 provision of Section 1225(b)(2)(A), applies to a noncitizen in Petitioner's position who has
24 resided in the United States for many years.” Lopez, 2025 WL 3005346, at *4 (citations
25 omitted).
26
27
1 Third, § 1226 already provides an exception to its rule that the Attorney General
2 may set bond or release an alien on conditional parole, specifically under subsection (c).
3 Enacted by the Laken Riley Act, Pub. L. No. 119-1, 139 Stat. 3 (2025), § 1226(c)(1)(E)
4 requires mandatory detention for people who are inadmissible under §§ 1182(a)(6)(A),
5 (6)(C), or (7) and charged with certain crimes. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E). Beyond the fact
6 that Petitioner doesn’t satisfy these requirements, a new “interpretation of Section
7 1225(b)(2)(A) would seemingly render the foregoing language from Section 1226(c) a
8 nullity.” Lopez, 2025 WL 3005346, at *4 (citations omitted). Specifically, “if § 1225(b)(2)
9 already encompassed all inadmissible noncitizens, there would be no need to pass an
10 amendment that required detention for those who are inadmissible under the same statutes
11 and are being charged with specific crimes.” Medina-Ortiz v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02819-
12 DMS-MMP, at *5 (S.D. Cal Oct. 30, 2025). Such an “interpretation would render the
13 Laken Riley Act, ‘superfluous’” and, therefore, should not be accepted. Id.
14 In sum, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not “seeking admission” under
15 § 1225(b)(2) and that an immigration judge retains authority to grant conditions of bail
16 under §1226(a). Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner is being unlawfully detained
17 under § 1225(b)(2) and is entitled to a bond hearing.
18 III. Remedy
19 Given the above, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing. However, while an
20 immigration judge denied Petitioner’s initial request for custody determination under
21 Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), the judge simultaneously issued alternative
22 findings if the immigration court did have jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-3. Specifically, the
23 judge alternatively granted a $2,000 bond and listed several conditions for release. Id.
24 As has been held in this district:
25 [G]iven Respondents’ “weighty” interest in the “efficient
administration of the immigration laws,” Landon v. Plasencia,
26
459 U.S. 21, 34 (1982), it does not make sense to require
27
1 Respondents to set a new bond hearing before a potentially new
immigration judge just to duplicate the same efforts taken at the
[previous] hearing. Nor would this remedy prejudice
3 Respondents. First, they have not contested the immigration
4 judge's findings or argued that Petitioner poses a flight risk or
danger to the community. Second, should Respondents wish to
5 make those arguments, they may do so by appealing the
6 immigration judge's decision to the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Ruiz v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-03536-RBM-BJW, 2025 WL 3719888, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
8 I Dec. 23, 2025).
9 Accordingly, the Court finds that immediate release, rather than requiring another
10 bond hearing, is the appropriate remedy.
CONCLUSION
12 Based on the reasoning above, the Court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas
13 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court ORDERS Respondents immediately
14 release Petitioner from custody, subject to a $2,000 bond and the conditions of release
15 || outlined by the immigration judge. Respondents are also ORDERED to FILE a Notice of
16 Compliance within seven days of releasing Petitioner. The Clerk of Court SHALL enter
7 judgment in Petitioner's favor and close this case.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated: January 16, 2026
20 Caroko 0? |
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
21 United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
11
28 26-cv-0186-GPC-AHC

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11266141. Public record. Not legal advice.