1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EZEQUIEL RODRIGUEZ BARRON Case No.: 25-cv-3434-JES-AHG

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

14 JOHN DOE, Warden, Imperial Regional

Adult Detention Facility; JOHN DOE, 15 Field Office Director, San Diego Field [ECF No. 1] 16 Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD M. 17 LYONS, Acting Director, United States 18 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Homeland 19 Security; PAMELA JO BONDI, United 20 States Attorney General, in their official capacities. 21 Respondents. 22 23 Before the Court is Petitioner Ezequiel Rodriguez Barron’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 24 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Pursuant 25 to the Court’s order to show cause (ECF No. 2), Respondents filed a return to the petition. 26 ECF No. 5. Petitioner filed a traverse on December 11, 2025. ECF No. 6. For the reasons 27 set forth below, the Court GRANTS the petition. 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner, a noncitizen, has lived in California for over a decade. Pet. ¶ 38. On 3 November 6, 2025, Petitioner was apprehended in Desert Hot Springs, California, by 4 Immigration and Custom Enforcement (“ICE”).

. He is currently being detained at 5 the Imperial Regional Adult Detention Facility in Calexico, California.

6 Removal proceedings are now pending for Petitioner before Imperial Immigration 7 Court.

. On November 21, 2025, Petitioner states that he was denied a bond 8 redetermination hearing before an immigration judge on the basis of lack of jurisdiction to 9 redetermine bond under Matter of Yajure-Hurtado,

(BIA 2025). Id. ¶ 42. 10 On November 28, 2025, Petitioner states that he was given a bond redetermination hearing, 11 but the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) again denied the request on the basis that it lacked 12 jurisdiction. Id. 13 Petitioner alleges in his petition that he should not be subject to mandatory detention 14 under

(b)(2), and should rather be subject to § 1226(a). Id. ¶¶ 47-49. As 15 such, his detention without a meaningful bond hearing violates § 1226. He seeks either 16 release or that the Court order a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 19 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,

(2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 20 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 21 custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 22 Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus 23 to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal 24 law.

(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means 25 of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections 26 have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr,

(2001). Accordingly, challenges 27 to immigration-related detention are within the purview of a district court's habeas 28 1 jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis,

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

, 517 (2003). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 In Respondents’ return to the petition, they raise several issues: (1) Petitioner’s claim 5 and requested relief is jurisdictionally barred by

; (2) alternatively, if not 6 barred, Petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies; and (3) Petitioner is lawfully 7 detained under § 1225 and it is that section, rather than § 1226, that applies to his detention. 8 ECF No. 5. 9 Respondents’ arguments with regards to jurisdiction, administrative exhaustion, and 10 applicability of § 1225 versus § 1226 are identical to those recently addressed by the 11 undersigned in Martinez Lopez v. Noem et al., No: 25-cv-2717-JES-AHG,

3030457, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025). In that decision, this Court held that the Court 13 finds that the jurisdiction stripping provisions of

do not strip it of 14 jurisdiction to hear similar claims challenging detention without an adequate bond hearing, 15 and that any further administrative exhaustion requirements are waived in light of Matter 16 of Yajure Hurtado. Further, the Court, along with many others, held that it is § 1226 that 17 applies to noncitizens that have been detained when after residing in the United States for 18 a period of time. The Court adopts it reasoning as to these issues and incorporates it by 19 reference. See also Beltran et al. v. Noem et al., No. 25CV2650-LL-DEB,

3078837, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025) (holding same). 21 As applied here, there is no dispute that Petitioner was detained by ICE after having 22 already resided in the United States for many years. Therefore, it is § 1226’s discretionary 23 detention that applies to him, rather than § 1225’s mandatory discretion, and Petitioner is 24 entitled to a meaningful bond determination not solely based on Matter of Yajure Hurtado. 25 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s petition on this ground. 26 IV. CONCLUSION 27 For the reasons discussed above, the Court ORDERS as follows: 28 (1) Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED; 1 (2) The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond 2 redetermination hearing under

(a) within ten days of this 3 Order. At the hearing, the IJ may not deny Petitioner bond on the basis that he 4 is detained under

(b)(2); 5 (4) Respondents are ORDERED to File a Notice of Compliance within ten days 6 of providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing; 7 (5) The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close 8 this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: December 12, 2025 i 4am Sin, 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