1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VINCENTE SALAZAR-OSORIO Case No.: 25-cv-3296-JES-MMP

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; [ECF No. 1] 15 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of 16 the United States; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and 17 Customs Enforcement; JESUS ROCHA, 18 Acting Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office; and CHRISTOPHER J. 19 LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa 20 Detention Center, San Diego, California. 21 Respondents. 22 23 24

25 Before the Court is Petitioner Vincente Salazar-Osorio’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 26 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

, filed on November 25, 2025. ECF 27 No. 1 (“Pet.”). 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who was previously removed from the United States 3 on October 21, 2014, and returned on September 1, 2018. Pet. at 3. Upon his return to the 4 United States, Petitioner was immediately detained.

An asylum officer granted 5 Petitioner a reasonable fear interview and found that Petitioner did have a reasonable fear 6 of persecution or torture in Mexico.

Petitioner was referred to an immigration judge for 7 withholding proceedings.

8 Petitioner suffers from severe mental health issues.

. Immigration officials 9 properly noted this and granted him special treatment in immigration court under Franco- 10 Gonzalez v. Holder, Case No. 10-cv-02211 (C.D. Cal.).

After 6 months in custody, on 11 February 7, 2019, Petitioner received a bond hearing, was granted minimum bond, and was 12 released on an order of supervision.

13 In 2024, with the assistance of his immigration attorney, Petitioner met with an ICE 14 officer to obtain a work permit.

The officer confirmed Petitioner’s compliance with his 15 order of supervision, and wrote that Petitioner “has no more reporting requirements with 16 the ERO.”

Petitioner subsequently obtained a work permit, which he used to get two 17 jobs.

Petitioner supports his five children with the pay from his jobs.

18 This year, Petitioner’s immigration attorney again sought proof of compliance to 19 renew Petitioner’s work permit.

ICE refused to provide the documentation and ordered 20 Petitioner to come check-in in person.

Petitioner did so and was re-detained.

. 21 Petitioner states, and Respondents do not contest, that ICE did not provide notice, 22 rationale for the revocation of his release, or an informal interview.

Petitioner’s 23 withholding proceedings have been re-opened.

On November 7, 2025, an immigration 24 judge found Petitioner incompetent.

Petitioner is subject to another hearing in 25 December of 2025.

26 II. LEGAL STANDARD 27 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 28 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,

(2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 1 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 2 custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 3 Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus 4 to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal 5 law.

(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means 6 of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections 7 have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr,

(2001). Accordingly, challenges 8 to immigration-related detention are within the purview of a district court's habeas 9 jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis,

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

, 517 (2003). 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 A. Jurisdiction 13 As an initial matter, Respondents argue that the Court does not have jurisdiction over 14 areas of immigration law, like the decision to initiate removal proceedings against an alien, 15 designated by law to the executive branch. ECF No. 6 at 3. As discussed in other cases 16 before this Court and in this District, the Court agrees with the government’s underlying 17 proposition but finds that it has jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s claims that his detention is 18 unlawful. See Sanchez v. Noem, 25-cv-2995-JES-BJW, ECF No. 11 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 19 2025); Alegria Palma v. LaRose, 25-cv-1942-BJC-MMP, ECF No. 14 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 20 2025); Mendez Los Santos v. LaRose, 25-cv-2216-TWR-MSB, ECF No. 14 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21 4, 2025) (granting petition by minute order); Rokhifirooz v. LaRose et al., No. 25-cv-2053- 22 RSH-VET,

(S.D. Cal Sept. 15, 2025). 23 B. Due Process 24 Petitioner contends that his re-detention without notice or opportunity to be heard 25 violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pet. at 9. The Court agrees. 26 In Navarro Sanchez v. LaRose et al., this Court analyzed caselaw on the due process 27 clause in the immigration context and held that a noncitizen’s parole or supervised release 28 constitutes a protected liberty interest of which they may not be deprived without adequate 1 notice, including individualized findings of changed circumstances, and a meaningful 2 opportunity to be heard regarding the deprivation. No: 25-cv-2396-JES-MMP, ECF No. 10 3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025). The Court adopts its reasoning as to these issues in that case 4 and incorporates it by reference. 5 Here, Petitioner had liberty interests in his supervised release and in his previously 6 ordered bond. Respondents deprived Petitioner of those liberty interests when they re- 7 detained him. Petitioner alleges, and Respondents do not deny, that he did not receive 8 notice or an opportunity to be heard regarding the revocation of either protected liberty 9 interest. Respondents have thus violated Petitioner’s due process rights by re-detaining him 10 without notice or opportunity to be heard. 11 To meet this issue, Respondents argue only that Petitioner’s reliance on caselaw 12 regarding 1226(a) bond order is inapplicable because Petitioner is detained subject to 8

(a). ECF No. 5 at 7. As Petitioner points out in his traverse, this argument 14 creates new issues for Respondents, whose authority to cancel Petitioner’s bond arises 15 under § 1226(b). ECF No. 6 at 5. While the Court does not reach the INA arguments in this 16 order, the Court does find that by its plain language

applies to Petitioner. 17 Further, upon review of Petitioner’s order of supervision, the Court finds that Respondents 18 vested a protected liberty interest in Petitioner. See ECF 7-1. The government may not 19 avoid its responsibility to provide due process in the revocation of that interest through 20 statutory shifting. 21 Respondents also argue that Petitioner has failed to show prejudice. ECF No. 6 at 8. 22 The Court has previously explained that it is not persuaded by the argument that 23 immigration detainees must show that they were prejudiced by the government’s illegal 24 action to show their entitlement to legal protection. See Xayakesone v. Noem et al., 25-cv- 25 02995-JES-BJW, ECF No. 10 at 6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). Further, as Petitioner explains, 26 Petitioner’s exacerbated mental health condition in custody, and the loss of his income, 27 show prejudice to Petitioner. ECF No. 7 at 6. The Court thus does not find a basis to deny 28 the petition based on prejudice. 1 For the reasons set forth above, the Petition is GRANTED on the basis that 2 Respondents violated Petitioner’s nght to due process by revoking his release without 3 notice, individualized findings, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Because the Court 4 || grants release on this basis, the Court does not reach the remainder of Petitioner’s claims. 5 IV. CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS the Petition and ORDERS 7 Petitioner be release subject to the conditions of his previously granted supervised 8 || release. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: December 4, 2025 i Sa— Sin——4,. 12 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

«