1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OBDULIO REYES BENITEZ, Case No.: 25-cv-3298-JES-DEB

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING COUNT ONE OF 14 Kristi NOEM, Secretary, U.S. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF Department of Homeland Security; 15 HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO Pamela BONDI, U.S. Attorney General;

; AND 16 Todd LYONS, Acting Director,

Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 17 (2) DENYING AS MOOT COUNTS Gregory J. ARCHAMBEAULT, Director, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR OF 18 San Diego Field Office, THE PETITION, AND MOTION Immigration and Customs, Christopher J. 19 FOR TEMPORARY LACROSE, Senior Warden, Otay RESTRAINING ORDER. 20 Mesa Detention Center; EXECUTIVE

OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION 21 REVIEW; IMMIGRATION AND [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 22 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 23 SECURITY Respondents. 24 25 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Before the Court is Petitioner Obdulio Reyes Benitez’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 2 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

, and Motion for a Temporary 3 Restraining Order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, (“Pet.”), 2. Petitioner seeks habeas relief by 4 asserting that Respondents’ application of

(b)(2) with respect to his 5 detention violates the: (1) Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”); (2) Administrative 6 Procedure Act (“APA”); and (3) Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. 7 Constitution. Pet. ¶¶ 64-79. Petitioner also alleges that (4) he is a member of the nationwide 8 Bond Eligible Class that was established in Maldonaldo Bautista v. Santacruz, and is 9 therefore, entitled to a bond determination hearing. See --- F.Supp.3d ----,

3289861, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025). 11 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Count One of the Petition and 12 DENIES AS MOOT Counts Two, Three, and Four of the Petition, and the Motion for a 13 TRO. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 A. Factual Background 16 Petitioner, a Mexican national and citizen, entered the United States without 17 inspection nearly three decades ago and is currently detained at the Otay Mesa Detention 18 Center. Pet. ¶¶ 1, 56. Petitioner has no criminal record and has built a successful life with 19 his wife and three children.

; ECF No. 2-2 at 26-27. In May 2022, Petitioner’s 20 asylum claim was denied which led him to apply for Cancellation of Removal and 21 Adjustment of Status for Certain Nonpermanent Residents with the Executive Office for 22 Immigration Review (“EOIR”). Pet. ¶ 4. This required him to cooperate with Immigration 23 and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) by properly checking in as required.

On October 9, 24 2025, and during a scheduled “interview”, ICE arrested Petitioner.

. Following his 25 arrest, Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings under

(a).

. 26 Thereafter, ICE issued a custody determination to continue Petitioner’s detention without 27 an opportunity to post bond or be released on other conditions, pursuant to

1225(b)(2).

. 1 In this action, Petitioner contends that he has been illegally detained by the 2 Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the EOIR, which have adopted a new 3 interpretation of the INA which treats all individuals who entered the country without 4 inspection as “applicants for admission.”

. This subjects such persons to mandatory 5 detention under

(b)(2).

Petitioner argues that he has lived in the United 6 States for years, and therefore, Section 1225(b) does not apply to him.

. Further, 7 that to the extent he remains in custody, his detention should proceed under Section 8 1226(a), which authorizes release on bond or conditional parole.

Accordingly, 9 Petitioner seeks habeas relief from the Court because his continued detention, resulting 10 from Respondents’ application of Section 1225(b), violates: the INA; the APA; Zadvydas; 11 and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

. 12 B. Procedural Background 13 The Petition and TRO were filed on November 25, 2025.

On November 26, 2025, 14 the Court issued an Order: (1) Staying Removal of Petitioner to Preserve Jurisdiction; (2) 15 Setting Briefing Schedule; and (3) Requiring a Response to Petition and TRO. ECF No. 3. 16 Respondents filed their Response on December 2, 2025. ECF No. 7, (“Res.”). Petitioner 17 filed the Traverse on December 3, 2025. ECF No. 8. Thereafter, the Court took the matter 18 under submission. 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 21 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,

(2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 22 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 23 custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 24 Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus 25 to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal 26 law.

(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means 27 of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections 28 have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr,

(2001). Accordingly, challenges 1 to immigration-related detention are within a district court's habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas 2 v. Davis,

(2001); see also Demore v. Kim,

(2003). 3 Habeas corpus is “perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law 4 ... affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or 5 confinement.” Fay v. Noia,

(1963). “The application for the writ usurps 6 the attention and displaces the calendar of the judge or justice who entertains it and receives 7 prompt action from him within the four corners of the application.” Yong v. I.N.S.,

(9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). 9 III. DISCUSSION 10 The Court finds that the parties’ arguments with respect to whether the Court has 11 jurisdiction to hear this petition; and Petitioner’s detention is governed by

1225(b)(2) or 1226(a), are analogous to those raised in the Court’s recent decision, 13 Martinez Lopez v. Noem, et al. No: 25-cv-2717-JES-AHG,

, at *2 (S.D. 14 Cal. Oct. 30, 2025). The Court, therefore, elects to follow its reasoning in Martinez Lopez 15 and incorporates it by reference.

16 A. Jurisdiction 17 In this action, Petitioner challenges the propriety of his detention, pursuant to 18 Respondents’ application of

(b)(2), not the merits of his removal 19 proceedings. The Court, therefore, finds that

's jurisdiction stripping 20 provisions do not bar this Court from considering this Petition. The Court also finds that 21 the prudential administrative exhaustion requirement for habeas claims under

Section 2241 is excused. This is because imposing this requirement would be futile due to 23 the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado,

216 (BIA 2025) (holding that

(b)(2) applies to noncitizens such as 25 Petitioner). Thus, the Court has jurisdiction to hear the Petition. 26 B. Count One 27 The Court finds that prior to his arrest, Petitioner resided within the United States 28 for more than two years, which occurred within the interior of the country. Therefore, 8

(a), not

(b), applies to Petitioner and governs his detention. 2 The Court finds further that Respondents’ errant application of

to 3 Petitioner’s detention violates the INA. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT Count One 4 of the Petition. Further, the Court will ORDER Respondents to provide Petitioner with an 5 individualized bond determination hearing by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), who may not 6 deny him bond on the basis that

(b) governs his detention. 7 C. Counts Two and Three, and Temporary Restraining Order 8 Since the Court granted Count One of the Petition, it declines to address Counts Two 9 and Three of the Petition or apply the Winter factors to determine whether to issue a TRO. 10 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

(2008). The Court, therefore, 11 DENIES AS MOOT Counts Two and Three of the Petition and the Motion for Temporary 12 Restraining Order. 13 D. Count Four 14 Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a bond hearing because he clearly falls 15 within the Maldonado Bautista Bond Eligible Class. See Bautista,

, at 16 *11; see also Bautista v. Santacruz, --- F.R.D. ----,

, at *9 (C.D. Cal. 17 Nov. 25, 2025). The Bautista court granted partial summary judgment to petitioners after 18 it found that DHS’s mandatory detention policy, pursuant to

(b), is 19 unlawful. Pet. ¶ 41; Bautista,

, at *11. That court later certified a 20 nationwide Bond Eligible Class, which it defined as “[a]ll noncitizens in the United States 21 without lawful status who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without 22 inspection; (2) were not or will not be apprehended upon arrival; and (3) are not or will not 23 be subject to detention under

(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time the 24 Department of Homeland Security makes an initial custody determination.” Bautista, 2025

, at *9. 26 The legal effect of the Bautista decision is disputed among the parties. Respondents 27 concede that Petitioner appears to be a Maldonado Bautista class member. Res. at 1. They 28 also agree that the Bautista court granted class certification and partial summary 1 judgment—solely to the petitioners in that case.

Respondents, however, argue that the 2 Bautista Court did not issue a class-wide declaratory judgment.

And in the absence of 3 such a judgment, regardless of whether Petitioner is a Bond Eligible Class member, he is 4 not entitled to the same remedy as the Bautista petitioners.

5 Petitioner argues that when the Bautista court certified the Bond Eligible Class, it 6 extended the same declaratory relief—that it provided when granting partial Summary 7 Judgment—to the Bond Eligible Class as a whole. Bautista,

, at *9. He 8 argues further that this authorizes the Court to order Respondents to provide Petitioner a 9 bond hearing governed by Section 1226(a), upon its finding that he is a member of the 10 Bond Eligible Class. Pet. ¶¶ 42, 79. 11 The Court need not decide whether Petitioner is a member of the Bond Eligible Class 12 or the effect of the Bautista decision on Petitioner because it has already found that 13 Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief under Count One. Therefore, any such analysis would 14 be unnecessary. Thus, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Count Four of the Petition. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing: 17 (1) The Court GRANTS Count One of the Petition; 18 (2) The Court DENIES AS MOOT Counts Two, Three, and Four of the 19 Petition, and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; 20 (3) The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with an 21 individualized bond hearing by an IJ, who may not deny him bond on the 22 basis that

(b) governs his detention, as

(a) 23 applies, within ten (10) days of this Order, or otherwise release him from 24 custody, under the same conditions that existed before his detention; and 25 (4) Respondents are ORDERED to FILE a Notice of Compliance within ten 26 (10) days of providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing. 27 // 28 // I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: December 12, 2025

4 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28