Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 KENNER ANTONIO CORRALES Case No.: 26cv3728 DMS (BJW)

GUIDEL,

12

ORDER GRANTING PETITION

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

JEREMY CASEY, Warden of the

15

Imperial Regional Detention Facility;

16 JESUS ROCHA, Acting Field Officer

Director, San Diego Field Office, U.S.

17

Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

18 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of

the U.S. Department of Homeland

19

Security; TODD M. LYONS, Acting

20 Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement; TODD BLANCHE, Acting

21

Attorney General of the United States,

22

Respondents.

23

24 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas

25 Corpus. (ECF No. 9.) Respondents filed a Response, stating that—in light of Rodriguez

26 Vasquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6841, 2026 WL 219424, — F.4th — (9th Cir. July 30, 2026)—

27 Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 11 at 2.) Respondents

28 also acknowledge that immigration authorities previously released Petitioner on

1 conditional parole issued under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id.) Accordingly, Respondents do not

2 oppose the Petition and defer to the Court on the appropriate relief. (Id.) Petitioner filed a

3 Reply. (ECF No. 12.)

4 I.

5 BACKGROUND

6 On December 6, 2021, Petitioner, a national of Nicaragua, arrived at the U.S.-

7 Mexico border in El Paso, Texas and was taken into immigration custody. (ECF No. 9 at

8 4.) Petitioner remained in immigration custody for nine days. (Id.) During this time,

9 immigration authorities conducted a credible fear interview, during which Petitioner

10 explained his fear of returning to Nicaragua after he was targeted by police for participating

11 in student protests. (Id.) On December 15, 2021, Petitioner was released on his own

12 recognizance with conditions in place. (Id.) Petitioner has complied with the conditions of

13 his release for over four years. (Id.)

14 On May 4, 2026, Petitioner attended his immigration court hearing in Florida, where

15 his application for asylum was denied. (Id.) Petitioner has appealed that ruling to the Board

16 of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (Id. at 5.) Following the hearing, Petitioner was arrested

17 and detained by immigration authorities. (Id.) Initially, Petitioner was detained in Florida

18 but has since been transferred to the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Calexico,

19 California. (Id.) On May 18, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing before an

20 immigration judge (“IJ”) but was denied release because the IJ concluded that it was

21 “without jurisdiction to determine bond” in Petitioner’s case under Matter of Yajure-

22 Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 21[6] (BIA 2025). (Id.) While Petitioner’s asylum denial is pending,

23 Petitioner remains detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility.

24 On June 25, 2026, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his first Petition for a Writ of

25 Habeas Court, challenging his continued detention at the Imperial Regional Detention

26 Facility. (See generally ECF No. 1.) On June 30, 2026, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s

27 first Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with leave to amend “because it [was] missing

28 crucial information for the Court to evaluate whether a response [was] warranted.” (Id. at

1 1.) On July 20, 2026, Petitioner filed his First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas

2 Corpus and Motion to Appoint Counsel. (See generally ECF Nos. 4–5.) Pursuant to Chief

3 Judge Order No. 132-A, this Court granted Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel

4 on July 23, 2026.

5 On July 30, 2026, Petitioner filed his Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas

6 Corpus, challenging his arrest at the immigration courthouse and his re-detention under the

7 Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

8 (“ICE”)’s policy regarding immigration enforcement near courthouses, and the Fifth

9 Amendment’s Due Process Clause. On August 7, 2026, Respondents filed a Response. On

10 August 10, 2026, Petitioner filed a Reply. (ECF No. 12.)

11 II.

12 LEGAL STANDARD

13 “Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by . . . district courts . . . within their

14 respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A petitioner prevails in his petition for writ

15 of habeas corpus if he shows that his custody violates the Constitution or laws of the United

16 States. Id. § 2241(c)(3). The writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained

17 within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004).

18 III.

19 DISCUSSION

20 The Court finds Petitioner’s detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process

21 Clause and therefore grants the Petition. When determining whether Petitioner’s

22 procedural due process rights have been violated, the Court must consider:

23 [f]irst, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second,

the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures

24

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

25 safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function

involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or

26

substitute procedural requirement would entail.

27

28 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

1 First, Petitioner has a liberty interest—the interest in being free from

2 imprisonment—because he had previously been released on his own recognizance at the

3 time of his re-detention. Munoz Materano v. Arteta, 804 F. Supp. 3d 395, 416 (S.D.N.Y.

4 2025) (citation modified) (citation omitted); Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1164

5 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (finding the petitioner “has a private interest in remaining free, which

6 developed over the year he resided in the United States”). This factor weighs in Petitioner’s

7 favor.

8 Next, there is a high risk of an erroneous deprivation of this liberty interest when

9 noncitizens are re-detained without a hearing. See, e.g., Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, 806 F.

10 Supp. 3d 1069, 1089 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2025) (citing cases). Respondents acknowledge

11 that Petitioner was previously released from immigration custody on conditional parole.

12 (ECF No. 11 at 2.) Nonetheless, Respondents detained Petitioner after his immigration

13 court hearing on May 4, 2026. (ECF No. 9 at 4.) Petitioner maintains that he did not receive

14 written notice regarding the termination of his conditional parole and was not provided

15 with a hearing where he could contest his re-detention. (Id. at 4–5.) Respondents do not

16 specifically respond to Petitioner’s allegations beyond providing a broad statement that

17 Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 11 at 2.) Thus, the

18 Court accepts Petitioner’s allegations as true and finds that Petitioner was re-detained

19 without adequate process. Accordingly, the second factor – the risk of an erroneous

20 deprivation of such interest through the procedures used – weighs in Petitioner’s favor.

21 Finally, “[t]he government may have a ‘strong interest’ in detaining noncitizens

22 during the pendency of removal proceedings as needed to protect the public from

23 dangerous criminal aliens, or to prevent flight and thereby increase the chance that the

24 aliens will be successfully removed.” Pablo Sequen, 806 F. Supp. 3d at 1090 (citation

25 modified) (quoting Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1208 (9th Cir. 2022)). But

26 when the Government previously decided to release a noncitizen, and there is no evidence

27 of any material, changed circumstances that might have caused the Government to

28 reconsider that decision, its interest in re-detention is low. Doe v. Chestnut, No. 25-cv-

1 ||01372-CDB, 2025 WL 3295154, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025) (citations omitted).

2 ||Here, the Government has submitted no evidence of changed circumstances to justify

3 || Petitioner’s re-detention after releasing him on conditional parole. (See generally ECF No.

4 Thus, this factor also weighs in Petitioner’s favor. Applying the Mathews balancing

5 || test, the Court finds that Petitioner’s detention violates his right to due process.

6 IV.

7 CONCLUSION

8 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Second Amended

9 || Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 9.)' Respondents shall release Petitioner

10 || forthwith. Respondents shall not re-detain Petitioner without first providing a pre-

11 || deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker at which Respondents must prove that

12 || material, changed circumstances related to flight risk or danger warrant Petitioner’s re-

13 detention. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report within 72 hours of this Order’s filing,

14 ||confirming Petitioner has been released. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment

15 || accordingly and close this case.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 ||Dated: September 1, 2026

18 nm Bb

19 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw

United States District Judge

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 The Court need not address Petitioner’s claim arising under the APA and ICE’s policy regarding civil

immigration enforcement near courthouses because the Petition can be resolved on due process grounds.