# Wokiefiuwe

> District Court, S.D. California · September 4, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11436131

## Case

- **Full name:** Tata Patricia Ching Wokiefiuwe v. Christopher Larose, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** September 4, 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/11436131

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 TATA PATRICIA CHING Case No.: 26-cv-2557-BJC-SBC
WOKIEFIUWE,
12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART
Petitioner, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
13
CORPUS
v.
14
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16

17
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Tata Patricia Ching Wokiefiuwe’s Amended
18
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 10. Petitioner
19
asserts her continued detention exceeds statutory authority and violates the due process
20
clause of the United States Constitution. ECF No. 1. Petitioner requests that this Court
21
assume jurisdiction over the matter, grant the Petition and order Respondents to release her
22
from custody or schedule an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge.
23
I. BACKGROUND
24
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Cameroon. On October 17, 2025, Petitioner was
25
detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection while attempting to enter the United
26
States. At that time, she did not have any valid entry documents to enter the United States
27
and was not then admitted or paroled into the United States. She was determined to be
28
1 inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), placed in expedited removal
2 proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), and taken into Immigration and Customs
3 Enforcement (ICE) custody.
4 After receiving a positive credible fear determination by an asylum officer pursuant
5 to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B), Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear (NTA). The filing
6 of the NTA initiated removal proceedings, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, against Petitioner.
7 On January 30, 2026, an immigration judge granted the Department of Homeland
8 Security’s (DHS) motion to pretermit Petitioner’s application for asylum under 8 U.S.C. §
9 1158, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture. and ordered Petitioner removed to Uganda. ECF No. 11, Exhibit 3. On
11 February 12, 2026, Petitioner timely filed an appeal of the IJs removal order to the Board
12 of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which remains pending. Petitioner has remained in ICE
13 custody since her entry into the United States.
14 On April 8, 2026, Petitioner filed her first habeas petition. Wokiefiuwe v. Richmond,
15 26-cv-02231-RSH-SBC, ECF No. 1. On April 10, 2026, this Court dismissed Petitioner’s
16 petition, holding that at the time she filed the petition, she had been detained less than five
17 months, therefore she had “not established unconstitutionally prolonged detention” See id.,
18 ECF No. 2 at 2.
19 II. LEGAL STANDARD
20 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the
21 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of
22 his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial
23 body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the
24 court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales, 418
25 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231,
26 § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising
27 independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention—
28 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443
1 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez,
2 III. DISCUSSION
3 A. Jurisdiction
4 Respondents argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)
5 because Petitioner’s claim arises from the decision to commence removal proceedings.
6 ECF No. 11 at 5. The Court disagrees.
7 Section 1252(g) provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or
8 claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney
9 General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any
10 alien under this chapter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Section 1252(g) should be read “narrowly”
11 as to apply “only to three discrete actions that the Attorney General may take: her ‘decision
12 or action’ to ‘commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.’”
13 Ibarra-Perez v. United States, No. 24-631, 2025 WL 2461663, at *6 (9th Cir. Aug. 27,
14 2025) (quoting Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 482,
15 487 (1999)). Section 1252(g) “does not prohibit challenges to unlawful practices merely
16 because they are in some fashion connected to removal orders.” Id. at *7. Section 1252(g)
17 does not bar due process claims. Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1052–53 (9th Cir. 1998)
18 (finding that the petitioners’ objective was not to review the merits of their proceeding, but
19 rather “to enforce their constitutional rights to due process in the context of those
20 proceedings”).
21 Here, Petitioner does not challenge the decision to commence removal proceedings
22 or any act to adjudicate or execute a removal order. Instead, Petitioner is challenging her
23 prolonged detention without a bond hearing. Petitioner is enforcing her “constitutional
24 rights to due process in the context of the removal proceedings—not the legitimacy of the
25 removal proceedings or any removal order.” Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2180-DMS-
26 MMP, 2025 WL 2549431, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025). Accordingly, § 1252(g) does not
27 divest the Court of jurisdiction.
28 //
1 B. Merits
2 “Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court have provided guidance regarding
3 the point at which an immigration detainee’s prolonged mandatory detention becomes
4 unconstitutional.” Amado v. United States Dep’t of Just., No. 25CV2687-LL(DDL), 2025
5 WL 3079052, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). However, “[n]early all district courts that
6 have considered [the constitutionality of prolonged mandatory detention] agree that
7 prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing,
8 will—at some point—violate the right to due process.” Singh v. Barr, 400 F. Supp. 3d 1005
9 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (cleaned up) (collecting
10 cases). To determine whether continued mandatory detention without a bond hearing has
11 become unreasonable, “the Court will look to the total length of detention to date, the likely
12 duration of future detention, and the delays in the removal proceedings caused by the
13 petitioner and the government.” Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal.
14 2022).
15 First, Petitioner has been detained since October 17, 2025, a period of ten months.
16 Under the circumstances of the present case, the length of detention without a bond hearing
17 weighs in favor of Petitioner. See Hoyos Amado, 2025 WL 3079052, at *5 (“Courts have
18 found detention over seven months without a bond hearing weighs toward a finding that it
19 is unreasonable.”) (collecting cases); Tonoyan v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-00815-SKO
20 (HC), 2025 WL 3013684, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2025) (“Petitioner has been detained
21 approximately 11 months. This period ... qualifies as prolonged.”); Gao, 2025 WL
22 2770633, at *5 (“The Court finds that Petitioner's detention for over 10 months without a
23 bond hearing, in the context of the specific circumstances described above, has become
24 unreasonable and violates due process.”); Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D.
25 Cal. 2022) (“Petitioner has been in immigration detention ... approximately one year.
26 District court have found shorter lengths of detention ... without a bond hearing to be
27 unreasonable.”) (collecting cases).
28 Next, Petitioner has an appeal to the BIA pending which makes it uncertain, at best,
1 ||how long her detention will last. See Masood v. Barr, No. 19-CV-07623-JD, 2020 WL
2 95633, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2020) (noting that the “government cannot predict with any
3 || degree of confidence when the BIA appeal will be resolved’’). Therefore, this factor weighs
4 favor of Petitioner. Finally, neither the government nor Petitioner appear to have caused
5 || delays in the removal proceedings, making this factor neutral.
6 In sum, the circumstances here weigh in favor of Petitioner’s right to a prompt and
7 || individualized bond hearing at which Respondents must justify her continued detention by
8 ||a showing of clear and convincing evidence that she would likely flee or pose a danger to
9 || the community if released.
10 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
11 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas
12 ||corpus. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a constitutional adequate bond hearing
13 |/no later than September 18, 2026. Respondents are enjoined from transferring Petitioner
14 || before a bond hearing takes place.
15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 Dated: September 4, 2026
17

19
20 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11436131. Public record. Not legal advice.