Alfonso Rangel Velazquez v. Christopher J. LaROSE, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03474
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Alfonso RANGEL VELAZQUEZ, Case No.: 25-cv-3474-AGS-DEB 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Christopher J. LaROSE, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner challenges his immigration detention and seeks a writ of habeas corpus 10 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 11 HABEAS SCREENING 12 At the initial screening stage, petitioner Alfonso Rangel Velazquez need only make 13 out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing 14 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary 15 dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 16 is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting use of those Rules to any “habeas corpus 17 petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims 18 that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) 19 (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or 20 incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 21 Rangel Velazquez, a “Mexican national,” “entered the United States on or about 22 February 1, 1999.” (ECF 1, at 2.) He has since “lived continuously in Southern California” 23 and “is employed full-time in construction.” (Id. at 9.) Late last year, Rangel Velazquez 24 received a “Form I-131” “travel document” and “visit[ed] [] family” in “Mexico City, 25 Mexico,” returning on “January 5, 2025.” (Id. at 10.) Upon returning, “he was provided a 26 Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, authorizing his parole in the United States through 27 January 3, 2026.” (Id.) On “September 8, 2025,” Rangel Velazquez “received a ‘Call-In’ 28 notice instructing him to appear for an interview.” (Id. at 11.) At the appointment, Rangel 1 || Velazquez was “taken into ICE custody” and “charged” under 8 U.S.C. 2 || §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)G); 1182(a)(7)(A)G)(D. Ud. at 11-12.) “Rangel Velazquez was not 3 || provided any notice of his change in custody status or provided an opportunity to provide 4 evidence as to why he should not be detained.” (/d. at 12.) 5 This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Similar cases 6 ||involving revocation of parole have been found to have a “likelihood of success on the 7 || merits” or have resulted in the writ being issued. See, e.g., Salazar v. Casey, No. 3:25-cv- 8 ||2784-JLS-VET, 2025 WL 3063629, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025) (granting habeas relief 9 || for a “national of Venezuela” who, when “responding to a ‘call-in letter’ from ICE” “was 10 || arrested” and “re-detained”’); Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1089, 1091, 1096 11 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (granting habeas petition and preliminary injunction for “noncitizen” who 12 || had been paroled and was then “taken into custody during a standard check-in at [an] ICE 13 || office”); Federico Navarro Perez v. Christopher LaRose, et al., No. 3:25-cv-02620-RBM- 14 ||JLB, 2025 WL 3171742, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025) (granting habeas relief for 15 ||““Guatemalan national” who received “a mass email ... stating that his parole would be 16 |/terminated,” attended a “required immigration court hearing,” and was “detained by ... 17 || ICE”). 18 CONCLUSION 19 By December 17, 2025, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by 20 || petitioner must be filed by December 24, 2025. The Court will hold oral arguments on the 21 petition on January 8, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. 22 ||Dated: December 10, 2025

4 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 25 26 27 28