1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMINGO ALONSO VELASQUEZ, Case No.: 25-cv-3216-JES-AHG

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden,

Otay Mesa; TODD M. LYONS, Acting 15 Director of San Diego Field Office, U.S. [ECF No. 1] 16 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. 17 Department of Homeland Security; and 18 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, in their official 19 capacities, 20 Respondents. 21 22 23 Before the Court is Petitioner Domingo Alonso Velasquez’s (“Petitioner’s”) Petition 24 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

, filed on November 19, 2025. ECF 25 No. 1 (“Pet.”). Pursuant to the Court’s order to show cause (ECF No. 2), Respondents filed 26 a return to the petition and Petitioner filed a traverse. ECF Nos. 5, 6. For the reasons set 27 forth below, the Court DENIES the petition without prejudice. Petitioner may amend his 28 Petition in accordance with this order. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States on March 25, 2019. Pet. 3 ¶ 1. Petitioner sought asylum in the United States due to threats to his life in his home 4 country, including an incident when an armed assailant attempted to shoot him and an 5 incident in which his wife survived an attempted kidnapping.

. 6 On February 3, 2020, Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and 7 protection under the Convention Against Torture.

. Petitioner struggled with 8 elements of the application and adjudication process because he does not speak English 9 and has only a limited understanding of Spanish.

. On March 5, 2025, an 10 immigration judge denied Petitioner’s applications for protection.

. Petitioner 11 appealed the denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and has continued the appeal 12 process to the Ninth Circuit.

. 13 Petitioner was detained on July 22, 2025, at a regular ICE check-in.

Petitioner 14 states that he complied with all prior supervision requirements, but does not state the form 15 of supervision or parole those requirements related to.

At the time of filing the Petition, 16 Petitioner had been detained for 118 days.

17 Petitioner alleges that he should not be subject to mandatory detention under 8

(b)(2), and should rather be subject to § 1226(a). Id. ¶¶ 25-33. As such, his 19 detention without a meaningful bond hearing violates § 1226. He also alleges that 20 Respondents have violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by depriving him 21 of his liberty. Id. ¶¶ 37-40. He seeks either release or that the Court order a bond hearing 22 pursuant to § 1226. 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 25 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,

(2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 26 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 27 custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 28 Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus 1 to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal 2 law.

(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means 3 of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections 4 have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr,

(2001). Accordingly, challenges 5 to immigration-related detention are within the purview of a district court's habeas 6 jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis,

(2001); see also Demore v. Kim, 538

, 517 (2003). 8 III. DISCUSSION 9 A. Jurisdiction 10 As an initial matter, Respondents argue that the Court does not have jurisdiction over 11 areas of immigration law, like the decision to initiate removal proceedings against an alien, 12 designated by law to the executive branch. ECF No. 5 at 6. As discussed in other cases 13 before this Court and in this District, the Court agrees with the government’s underlying 14 proposition but finds that it has jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s claims that his detention is 15 unlawful. See Sanchez v. Noem, 25-cv-2995-JES-BJW, ECF No. 11 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 16 2025); Alegria Palma v. LaRose, 25-cv-1942-BJC-MMP, ECF No. 14 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 17 2025); Mendez Los Santos v. LaRose, 25-cv-2216-TWR-MSB, ECF No. 14 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 18 4, 2025) (granting petition by minute order); Rokhifirooz v. LaRose et al., No. 25-cv-2053- 19 RSH-VET,

(S.D. Cal Sept. 15, 2025). 20 B. INA Violation 21 Petitioner argues that Respondents have detained him illegally because 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1226, and not § 1225, governs his detention as an individual residing in the United States 23 prior to his detention. Pet. ¶¶ 34-36. Respondents take the position that Petitioner is subject 24 to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2) as an applicant for admission. ECF No. 25 5 at 4. While the Court agrees with Petitioner’s position regarding the basic purposes of 26 Sections 1225 and 1226, it finds that Petitioner has not provided sufficient information 27 regarding his time in the United States for the Court to determine which statute applies to 28 him. 1 In Martinez Lopez v. Noem et al., this Court analyzed the applicability of Sections 2 1225 and 1226 to individuals who had lived within the United States for a period of time, 3 and held that Section 1226 governed. No: 25-cv-2717-JES-AHG,

, at 4 *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025). The Court adopts its reasoning as to these issues in that 5 case and incorporates it by reference. See also Beltran et al. v. Noem et al., No. 25CV2650- 6 LL-DEB,

, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025) (holding the same). 7 Here, Petitioner has not provided information as to his status in the United States 8 between his initial entrance on March 25, 2019, and the beginning of his current detention 9 on July 22, 2025. See generally, Pet. He has not stated how long he was detained for 10 following his initial entrance into the United States, whether he has left the United States 11 recently and re-entered, or whether he was paroled into the country or given supervised 12 release during the above dates.

Without this information, the Court is unable to 13 determine whether Petitioner is properly understood as an applicant for admission under 14 Section 1225, or a “longtime noncitizen resident” with some release status and ties to this 15 country at the time of his arrest. See Martinez Lopez,

. 16 Without this information, the Court cannot properly find that Respondents have violated 17 the INA by detaining Petitioner. Thus, Petitioner has not met his burden, and the Petition 18 is DENIED on this basis. 19 C. Due Process Violation 20 Petitioner also argues that Respondents violated the Due Process Clause by detaining 21 him. Pet. ¶¶ 37-40. In Navarro Sanchez v. LaRose et al., this Court analyzed caselaw on 22 the due process clause in the immigration context and held that a noncitizen’s parole or 23 supervised release constitutes a protected liberty interest of which they may not be deprived 24 without adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard regarding the 25 deprivation. No: 25-cv-2396-JES-MMP, ECF No. 10 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025). The Court 26 adopts its reasoning as to these issues in that case and incorporates it by reference. 27 Here, Petitioner has not shown that he had a liberty interest in being present in the 28 United States, or that the government deprived him of that liberty interest without notice 1 the opportunity to be heard. See generally Pet. Petitioner states that he arrived in the 2 United States on March 25, 2019, and that he applied for asylum and other relief on 3 || February 3, 2020, but does not explain whether he was granted parole or supervised release 4 || between those dates. Pet. 4 18. Petitioner also does not state whether he was given notice 5 || or opportunity to be heard regarding any change in status prior to re-detention. /d. The fact 6 || of detention alone is not enough to show a due process violation. Thus, the Court cannot 7 || find that the government violated Petitioner’s right to due process at this time and DENIES 8 Petition on that basis. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice. 11 || Petitioner may amend his Petition in accordance with this order. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 || Dated: December 3, 2025 15 Sur—_J,. 16 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

«