Idris Demirtas v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.

Opinion

Idris DEMIRTAS, Case No.: 25-cv-3295-AGS-BJW Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE v. Christopher J. LAROSE, et al., Respondents. Petitioner challenges his immigration detention. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner Idris Demirtas need only make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting use of those Rules to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. Demirtas, a “citizen of Turkey,” “fled” “Turkey due to threats and physical violence against him for not being a member of the Muslim faith.” (ECF 1, at 3.) Demirtas “entered the United States on December 6, 2022” to “seek asylum” and “was released on parole on December 15, 2022.” (Id. at 2–3.) He “was given a five[-]year work permit dated December 22, 2022.” (Id. at 3.) In “May 2025,” Demirtas “received a letter dismissing his asylum” “without an interview.” (Id. at 6.) Demirtas then began “the process for obtaining legal residency,” because he is married to a U.S. citizen. On “November 19, 2025,” Demirtas’s immigration attorney received “a call-in letter by ICE” for Demirtas to “appear” for an “interview” “less than 16 hours later.” (/d.) When he “appeared at the interview,” Demirtas “was then immediately taken into custody unlawfully without notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Ud.) This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Similar cases across California have been found to have a “likelihood of success on the merits” or have resulted in the writ being issued. See, e.g., Federico Navarro Perez v. Christopher LaRose, al., No. 3:25-cv-02620-RBM-JLB, 2025 WL 3171742, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025) (granting habeas petition for “Guatemalan national” who received “a mass email . . . stating that his parole would be terminated,” attended a “required immigration court hearing,” and was “detained by ... ICE”); Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1089, 1091, 1096 (E.D. 2025) (granting habeas and preliminary injunction for “noncitizen” who had been paroled and was then “taken into custody during a standard check-in at [an] ICE office’’); Salazar v. Casey, No. 3:25-cv-2784-JLS-VET, 2025 WL 3063629, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. /3, 2025) (granting habeas for a “national of Venezuela” who, when “responding to a ‘call- letter’ from ICE” “was arrested” and re-detained’”’). By December 3, 2025, respondents must answer the petition. Any reply by petitioner must be filed by December 8, 2025. The Court will hold oral arguments on the petition on December 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Dated: November 28, 2025

Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge