6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 EVERLIDO MENDOZA-AILON, 9 10 Petitioner, Case No. C26-1362-RSM
11 v. ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 12 ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 13 Respondent.
14 15
16 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Petitioner Everlido Mendoza-Ailon’s 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. #3. The Court has reviewed 18 the petition, the Return and supporting declarations filed by the Government, Dkts. #6-8, and the 19 remainder of the record. 20 21 In his form petition, Petitioner asserts that he has been detained at Northwest ICE 22 Processing Center (“NWIPC”) in Tacoma, Washington since February 2, 2026. Dkt. #3 at 1. He 23 alleges that his current charges of deportation are “inadmissibility under Section 212” and being 24 “present without permission or parole.” Id. at 2. Petitioner provides no other facts specific to 25 him but requests that the Court “grant a bond review” and release him “upon conditions that is 26 27 [sic] fair and just.” Id. at 3. He further alleges that he “is not held under 8 USC 1226 (c)[,]” 28 which provides for mandatory detention under certain circumstances, but instead under 1226(a). 1 2 Id. at 3-4. 3 In a declaration of a deportation officer provided by the Government, the Government 4 asserts that Petitioner is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without 5 inspection on or about December 30, 2017. Dkt. #7 at ¶ 3. Petitioner was charged as 6 inadmissible, issued a Notice to Appear for immigration proceedings in Seattle, Washington, and 7 8 transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”)’s custody. Id. at ¶ 4. On February 9 4, 2018, ORR released Petitioner to the care of his sister. Id. at ¶ 5. 10 On August 31, 2021, an immigration judge in Seattle, Washington terminated Petitioner’s 11 immigration proceedings without prejudice based on his application for relief from removal that 12 13 he filed with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Id. at ¶ 6. 14 On May 12, 2025, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of rape of a child in the third 15 degree and one count of assault in the fourth degree in Whatcom County, Washington and 16 sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. Id. at ¶ 7 and Dkt. #8-1; RCW 9A.44.079 (defining third 17 degree rape of a child as sexual intercourse between a person at least 48 months older than a 18 19 minor between 14- and 16-years-old and as a class C felony); RCW 9A.36.041(1), (2) (defining 20 fourth degree assault as a gross misdemeanor). 21 On February 2, 2026, ICE took Petitioner into custody from the Washington Correction 22 Center in Stafford Creek, Washington. Id. at ¶ 8. He was issued a Notice to Appear for 23 proceedings in Tacoma, Washington and transferred to NWIPC. Id. On February 12, 2026, an 24 25 immigration judge in Tacoma sustained the charges in the Notice to Appear and designated 26 Petitioner’s country of removal as Guatemala “should it be necessary.” Id. at ¶ 9. However, the 27 immigration judge “continued proceedings since then for the adjudication by USCIS of 28 Petitioner’s previously filed application for relief from removal.” Id. Petitioner remains in 1 2 detention at NWIPC. 3 Federal courts have authority to grant writs of habeas corpus to an individual in custody 4 if such custody is a “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 5 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects against 6 deprivation of liberty without proper process and extends to deportation proceedings. See U.S. 7 8 Const. amend. V; Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 673 (2025) (“‘It is well established that the 9 Fifth Amendment entitled [noncitizens] to due process of law’ in the context of removal 10 proceedings.” (quoting Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993)). The right to due process 11 extends to “all ‘persons’ within the United States, including [non-citizens], whether their 12 13 presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 14 693, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 150 L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001). 15 Habeas petitions under § 2241 are subject to the same screening requirements as § 2254. 16 See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), 17 Rule 1(b); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming same). Per these Habeas 18 19 Rules, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 20 entitled to relief,” the “judge must dismiss the petition.” Habeas Rule 4. 21 Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient 22 facts to support his grounds for relief. The Habeas Rules require that petitioners provide all 23 grounds for relief and facts supporting each ground. See Habeas Rules 2(c) and (4). “[T]he 24 25 petition should state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error and show the 26 relationship of the facts to the claim.” Tazama v. U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf’t, No. 5:26-CV- 27 00462-SPG-JDE, 2026 WL 417475, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2026). Allegations that are vague, 28 conclusory, or unsupported by specific facts are insufficient and subject to dismissal. See Jones 1 2 v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir 1995). 3 Even on review of the petition with the Government’s Response and declarations, 4 Petitioner falls short of his requested relief. Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), 5 which subjects him to mandatory detention due to his particular criminal offenses. See Avilez v. 6 Garland, 69 F.4th 525, 530 (9th Cir. 2023). This detention authority continues through the 7 8 judicial review phase of removal proceedings, id. at 535-37, and no pre-detention process is 9 required. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 530 (2003). The Supreme Court has held that § 10 1226(c) “mandates detention of any [noncitizen] falling within its scope and that detention may 11 end prior to the conclusion of removal proceedings ‘only if’ the [noncitizen] is released for 12 13 witness-protection purposes.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 305-06 (2018). However, 14 having “grave doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without any 15 process is constitutional[,]” the Ninth Circuit instructs district court to determine the “minimum 16 requirements of due process” under § 1226(c). Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 255-56 (9th 17 Cir. 2018).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 EVERLIDO MENDOZA-AILON, 9 10 Petitioner, Case No. C26-1362-RSM
11 v. ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 12 ICE FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 13 Respondent.
14 15
16 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Petitioner Everlido Mendoza-Ailon’s 17 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. #3. The Court has reviewed 18 the petition, the Return and supporting declarations filed by the Government, Dkts. #6-8, and the 19 remainder of the record. 20 21 In his form petition, Petitioner asserts that he has been detained at Northwest ICE 22 Processing Center (“NWIPC”) in Tacoma, Washington since February 2, 2026. Dkt. #3 at 1. He 23 alleges that his current charges of deportation are “inadmissibility under Section 212” and being 24 “present without permission or parole.” Id. at 2. Petitioner provides no other facts specific to 25 him but requests that the Court “grant a bond review” and release him “upon conditions that is 26 27 [sic] fair and just.” Id. at 3. He further alleges that he “is not held under 8 USC 1226 (c)[,]” 28 which provides for mandatory detention under certain circumstances, but instead under 1226(a). 1 2 Id. at 3-4. 3 In a declaration of a deportation officer provided by the Government, the Government 4 asserts that Petitioner is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without 5 inspection on or about December 30, 2017. Dkt. #7 at ¶ 3. Petitioner was charged as 6 inadmissible, issued a Notice to Appear for immigration proceedings in Seattle, Washington, and 7 8 transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”)’s custody. Id. at ¶ 4. On February 9 4, 2018, ORR released Petitioner to the care of his sister. Id. at ¶ 5. 10 On August 31, 2021, an immigration judge in Seattle, Washington terminated Petitioner’s 11 immigration proceedings without prejudice based on his application for relief from removal that 12 13 he filed with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Id. at ¶ 6. 14 On May 12, 2025, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of rape of a child in the third 15 degree and one count of assault in the fourth degree in Whatcom County, Washington and 16 sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. Id. at ¶ 7 and Dkt. #8-1; RCW 9A.44.079 (defining third 17 degree rape of a child as sexual intercourse between a person at least 48 months older than a 18 19 minor between 14- and 16-years-old and as a class C felony); RCW 9A.36.041(1), (2) (defining 20 fourth degree assault as a gross misdemeanor). 21 On February 2, 2026, ICE took Petitioner into custody from the Washington Correction 22 Center in Stafford Creek, Washington. Id. at ¶ 8. He was issued a Notice to Appear for 23 proceedings in Tacoma, Washington and transferred to NWIPC. Id. On February 12, 2026, an 24 25 immigration judge in Tacoma sustained the charges in the Notice to Appear and designated 26 Petitioner’s country of removal as Guatemala “should it be necessary.” Id. at ¶ 9. However, the 27 immigration judge “continued proceedings since then for the adjudication by USCIS of 28 Petitioner’s previously filed application for relief from removal.” Id. Petitioner remains in 1 2 detention at NWIPC. 3 Federal courts have authority to grant writs of habeas corpus to an individual in custody 4 if such custody is a “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 5 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects against 6 deprivation of liberty without proper process and extends to deportation proceedings. See U.S. 7 8 Const. amend. V; Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 673 (2025) (“‘It is well established that the 9 Fifth Amendment entitled [noncitizens] to due process of law’ in the context of removal 10 proceedings.” (quoting Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993)). The right to due process 11 extends to “all ‘persons’ within the United States, including [non-citizens], whether their 12 13 presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 14 693, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 150 L. Ed. 2d 653 (2001). 15 Habeas petitions under § 2241 are subject to the same screening requirements as § 2254. 16 See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”), 17 Rule 1(b); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming same). Per these Habeas 18 19 Rules, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 20 entitled to relief,” the “judge must dismiss the petition.” Habeas Rule 4. 21 Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient 22 facts to support his grounds for relief. The Habeas Rules require that petitioners provide all 23 grounds for relief and facts supporting each ground. See Habeas Rules 2(c) and (4). “[T]he 24 25 petition should state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error and show the 26 relationship of the facts to the claim.” Tazama v. U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf’t, No. 5:26-CV- 27 00462-SPG-JDE, 2026 WL 417475, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2026). Allegations that are vague, 28 conclusory, or unsupported by specific facts are insufficient and subject to dismissal. See Jones 1 2 v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir 1995). 3 Even on review of the petition with the Government’s Response and declarations, 4 Petitioner falls short of his requested relief. Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), 5 which subjects him to mandatory detention due to his particular criminal offenses. See Avilez v. 6 Garland, 69 F.4th 525, 530 (9th Cir. 2023). This detention authority continues through the 7 8 judicial review phase of removal proceedings, id. at 535-37, and no pre-detention process is 9 required. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 530 (2003). The Supreme Court has held that § 10 1226(c) “mandates detention of any [noncitizen] falling within its scope and that detention may 11 end prior to the conclusion of removal proceedings ‘only if’ the [noncitizen] is released for 12 13 witness-protection purposes.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 305-06 (2018). However, 14 having “grave doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without any 15 process is constitutional[,]” the Ninth Circuit instructs district court to determine the “minimum 16 requirements of due process” under § 1226(c). Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 255-56 (9th 17 Cir. 2018). 18 19 Following the Ninth Circuit’s instruction, a “majority of district courts” consider “a 20 number of factors to determine whether a noncitizen’s mandatory detention under 1226(c) 21 violates due process.” Martinez v. Clark, No. C18-1669-RAJ-MAT, 2019 WL 5968089, at *7 22 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 18-CV-01669-RAJ, 2019 23 WL 5962685 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2019) (collecting cases). These factors under Martinez 24 25 include: 26 (1) the total length of detention to date; (2) the likely duration of future detention; 27 (3) whether the detention will exceed the time the petitioner spent in prison for the crime that made him removable; (4) the nature of the crimes the petitioner 28 committed; (5) the conditions of detention; (6) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the petitioner; (7) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the 1 government; and (8) the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a 2 final order of removal.
3 Id. 4 The first factor, the length of detention, “is the most important factor.” Id. at *9. 5 Petitioner has been detained for just short of 4 months. Noting that appealed detentions take “an 6 average of four months,” the Supreme Court in Demore held that detentions of six months under 7 8 § 1226(c) do not violate due process. 538 U.S. at 531. Thus, Petitioner’s detention of 4 months 9 weighs in the Government’s favor. See Galvan v. ICE Field Off. Dir., No. 2:26-CV-01007-TMC, 10 2026 WL 1413188, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 20, 2026) (collecting cases with detentions under 6 11 months). 12 13 Petitioner does not make any arguments as to the other seven factors. Given that 14 Petitioner’s initial proceedings were terminated in August 2021 due to his pending USCIS 15 application, and this same pending application is the source of the current continuation in 16 proceedings, it is unclear how long Petitioner will be detained. If Petitioner’s detention 17 continues, even beyond the amount of time served for his convictions, the Martinez factors may 18 19 then favor Petitioner. “But as of now, ‘[b]ecause the most important factor weighs so clearly in 20 Respondents’ favor, and because Petitioner has not made an argument, let alone a showing, as to 21 the other [seven], Petitioner does not, as pleaded, indicate a due-process violation arising from 22 the length of Petitioner’s detention under Section [1226(c)].” See id. at *3 (quoting Perro v. 23 Mullin, No. 2:26-CV-00847-TL, 2026 WL 982803, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 13, 2026)). 24 25 Having considered the instant petition, responsive briefings and declarations attached 26 thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Petitioner’s 27 habeas petition, Dkt. #3, is DENIED. 28 1 DATED this 28" day of May, 2026.
Ricardo S. Martinez 3 United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 - 6