Alvaro Matias Grosso v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALVARO MATIAS GROSSO, Case No.: 25-cv-3593-JES-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER: v. (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS OF HABEAS CORPUS; ENFORCEMENT, Respondent. (2) DENYING MOTION TO STAY AS MOOT; and (3) DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL AS MOOT 20 [ECF Nos. 1-3] 22 Before the Court is Petitioner Alvaro Matias Grosso’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner concurrently filed a motion to stay. ECF No. 2. Petitioner also subsequently filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 3. After due consideration and for the reasons below, the Court declines to issue an order to show cause and DENIES the petition without prejudice.

27 Petitioner is a native of Italy and is currently being detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center. ECF No. 1 at 1. He is currently in removal proceedings. Id. at 4. He alleges that he is a victim of human trafficking and appears to have a pending T-Visa case in front of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Id. at 5-6. In his petition, he seeks (1) immediate release; (2) dismissal of his immigration court charges “due to [his] situation as [a] victim[]”; (3) expedited processing of his USCIS case; and (4) an opportunity to contest his case with USCIS. Id. at 7.

6 Upon consideration of a habeas petition under § 2241, the court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. “Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”

11 Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)).

13 Here, Petitioner is not requesting any relief that is cognizable on habeas relief. On habeas, district courts may not review discretionary decisions made by immigration authorities, and may only review immigration-related detentions to determine if they comport with the requirements of the Constitution. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688, 17 (2001). Further, jurisdiction to review any challenges to underlying immigration orders, including removal orders, does not rest with the district court, but with appellate courts.

19 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Most of Petitioner’s relief asks the Court to interfere with his underlying and pending immigration proceedings, which the Court cannot do. While Petitioner does make a request for immediate release, he identifies no grounds, constitutional or otherwise, as to why he is entitled to this relief.

23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice, 2 DENIES the motion to stay and motion for appointment of counsel as moot. The Clerk 3 directed to close the case.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 || Dated: January 12, 2026 6 =| we San— 1, 7 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. g United States District Judge