1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 25cv3492 DMS AHG FLORENCIO PEREZ MARTINEZ,

12 O R D E R G R A N T I N G P E T I TION 13 Petitioner, v. 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. 15 Department of Homeland Security; TODD 16 LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 17 PATRICK DIVVER, Field Officer 18 Director, San Diego Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 19 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior 20 Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; SIRCE OWEN, Acting Director of the 21 Executive Office for Immigration Review 22 (EOIR), U.S. Department of Justice; and PAM BONDI, Attorney General, U.S. 23 Department of Justice, 24 Respondents. 25 26 This case comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 27 (“Petition”). (ECF No. 1). Respondents filed a Return to the Petition, (ECF No. 5), and 28 Petitioner filed a Traverse. 1 Petitioner is a Mexican national who has lived in the United States since 1997. (Pet. 2 ¶ 1.) He is legally married to a United States citizen and has an 11-year old stepdaughter 3 who is also a United States citizen. (Id. ¶ 31.) 4 On November 18, 2025, Petitioner presented to ICE’s San Diego Field Office for a 5 regular check-in appointment, where he was arrested. (Id. ¶ 33.) Petitioner was 6 subsequently transferred to the Otay Mesa Detention Center, where he is currently 7 detained, with removal proceedings pending before the Otay Mesa Immigration Court. (Id. 8 ¶ 34.) 9 After being detained, Petitioner’s counsel filed a request for custody redetermination 10 with the Immigration Court. The Court denied that request on December 5, 2025, finding 11 Petitioner was subject to mandatory detention pursuant to Matter of Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I 12 & N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).1 (Id. ¶ 39.) 13 Petitioner filed the present case four days later, on December 9, 2025. In the Petition 14 he alleges he is being detained in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and 15 Respondents’ invocation of

to support his detention violates his Fifth 16 Amendment liberty interests. Respondents assert the Court lacks jurisdiction over these 17 claims, Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and Petitioner is 18 properly detained under

(b)(2)(A). 19 This Court has rejected Respondent’s jurisdiction argument in several previous 20 cases. See, e.g., Arellano v. LaRose, No. 3:25-cv-03316-DMS-AHG, ECF No. 6; Fanfan 21 v. Noem, No. 25cv3291 DMS (BJW), ECF No. 13, Medina-Ortiz v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2819- 22 DMS-MMP, ECF No. 7; Vasquez Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02180-DMS-MMP, 2025

, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025). The undersigned has also joined other 24

25 26 1 In Yajure-Hurtado, the Board of Immigration Appeals reasoned that any individual who entered the United States without admission is an “applicant for admission” (meaning, an “alien present in the United 27 States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival . . .)”), and must, therefore, be detained during removal proceedings pursuant to

1 district judges in the Ninth Circuit in rejecting Respondent’s exhaustion argument. See 2 Mendez Chavez v. Noem, Case No. 25cv2818 DMS (SBC), ECF No. 8 at 3; Esquivel-Ipina 3 v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2672 JLS (BLM),

, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 4 2025) (finding exhaustion would be futile in light of Yajure Hurtado); Vasquez v. Feeley, 5 No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY,

, at *10 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (same). 6 Respondents offer no argument or authority warranting departure from this Court’s 7 previous orders, and thus the Court stands on its previous decisions rejecting these 8 arguments. 9 On the merits, Respondents argue “Petitioner is mandatorily detained in [ICE] 10 custody pursuant to

(b)(2)(A), and that no statutory and constitutional 11 violations exist.” (Return to Pet. at 1.) The Court has addressed the 1225/1226 issue in 12 several previous decisions, and found noncitizens like Petitioner here are appropriately 13 detained under § 1226(a) as opposed to § 1225(b)(2)(A). See, e.g., Garcia v. Noem, ___

,

, at *5-7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025) (finding petitioners 15 had shown a likelihood of success on claim they were detained under § 1226(a) as opposed 16 to § 1225(b)(2)(A)). In a recent decision, the Seventh Circuit also came to the same 17 conclusion. Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, ___ F.4th ___,

3552514, at *8-10 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025) (concluding on a preliminary record “that 19 Defendants are not likely to succeed on the merits of their argument that those individuals, 20 whom ICE arrested without a warrant, are subject to mandatory detention under § 21 1225(b)(2)(A).”) Several district courts across the country have now followed the 22 reasoning of Castañon-Nava, and also come to the same conclusion. See, e.g., Mejia Diaz 23 v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-960-CCB-SJF,

(N.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2025) (citing 24 Castañon-Nava to support conclusion that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to noncitizens who 25 are apprehended in the interior of the United States years after their unlawful entry); Diaz 26 Colin v. Holt, No. CIV-25-1189-D,

(W.D. Okla. Dec. 16, 2025 (same); 27 Goorakani v. Lyons, Nos. 25 Civ. 9456 (DEH), 25 Civ. 9551 (DEH), 25 Civ. 9592 (DEH), 28 25 Civ. 9952 (DEH),

, at *8-12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025); (concluding, 1 ||based in part on Castanion-Nava, that “[m]andatory detention under Section 1225(b) 2 applies only to those applicants for admission who are seeking admission—1.e., ‘arriving 3 || aliens,’ or those who are entering (or attempting to enter) the country, and not to those who 4 already present or reside here.”’); Simon v. Olson, No. 25 C 14799,

, 5 *4-5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2025) (concluding § 1226(a) applied to noncitizen who (1) had 6 || been present in the United States for 23 years, (2) had five U.S. citizen children, (3) had no 7 || criminal record, and (4) was detained in the Midwest); Acosta de Perez v. Frank, No. H- 8 25-5357,

, at *2-5 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2025) (citing Castafion-Nava in 9 || concluding petitioner’s detention was governed by § 1226(a) rather than § 1225(b)). 10 Based on this Court’s reasoning in Vasquez Garcia, and the reasoning of □□□□□□□□□□□ 11 || Nava, the Court concludes Petitioner’s detention in this case is likewise governed by § 12 || 1226(a) as opposed to § 1225(b)(2)(A). Accordingly, the Petition is granted. Respondents 13 || are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before the Immigration 14 || Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order. Respondents shall not deny 15 || Petitioner bond on the basis that § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. Further, the 16 || parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report within twenty-one (21) days of this 17 || Order’s entry, confirming Petitioner received a new bond hearing. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: December 17, 2025 20 nm Sab Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28