1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIO CESAR VARONA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3328-JES-SBC
12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING COUNT ONE OF 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF Department of Homeland Security; 15 HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of 28 U.S.C. § 2241; 16 the United States; TODD M. LYONS,
Acting Director, Immigration and Customs 17 (2) DENYING AS MOOT COUNT Enforcement; JESUS ROCHA, Acting TWO AND THREE OF THE 18 Field Office Director, San Diego Field PETITION, AND MOTION FOR Office; and CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, 19 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention ORDER 20 Center, San Diego, California.
21 Respondents.
22 [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 23 24 25 26 Before the Court is Petitioner Julio Cesar Varona’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ 27 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Motion for a Temporary Restraining 28 Order (“TRO”). ECF No. 1, (“Pet.”); ECF No. 2, (“TRO”). The Petition and TRO were 1 filed on November 26, 2025. Id. Respondents filed their Response on December 3, 2025. 2 ECF No. 6, (“Res.”). Petitioner filed his Traverse on December 4, 2025. ECF No. 7. 3 Thereafter, the Court took the matter under submission. 4 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Count One of the Petition for 5 Writ of Habeas Corpus, DENIES AS MOOT Counts Two and Three of the Petition, and 6 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 7 I. BACKGROUND 8 Petitioner is a citizen and national of Cuba, who entered the United States in 1995, 9 and was later convicted for sexual battery of a minor. See ECF No. 6-4, (“Res. Dec.”), ¶ 4. 10 On September 26, 2001, Petitioner was booked into Immigration and Customs 11 Enforcement (“ICE”) custody in Miami, Florida Id. ¶ 6. On September 26, 2001, an 12 Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed to Cuba, following his stipulated request 13 for a removal order. Id. ¶ 7; ECF No. 6-1. On February 5, 2002, ICE released Petitioner 14 from custody on an Order of Supervision. Res. Dec. ¶ 8. 15 On October 22, 2025, ICE arrested Petitioner after being identified for an 16 enforcement operation and re-detained him at the Krome Detention Center. Id. ¶ 9. After 17 his arrest, Petitioner was served with a written Notice of Revocation of Release (“Notice”) 18 and given an informal interview. Id.; ECF No. 6-2. Since his re-detention, ICE has 19 attempted to effectuate Petitioner’s removal. See Res. Dec. ¶¶ 9–12. 20 After repatriation efforts to Cuba proved unsuccessful, ICE identified Mexico as a 21 third country where Petitioner may be removed. Id. ¶¶ 10–11. On November 16, 2025, ICE 22 served Petitioner with a Notice of Removal, notifying him of its intent to remove him to 23 Mexico. Id. ¶ 11; ECF No. 6-3. On November 23, 2025, ICE transferred Petitioner to the 24 Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, California to execute his removal to Mexico on 25 November 28, 2025. Res. Dec. ¶ 12. After ICE was notified of Petitioner’s habeas petition 26 and declaration attesting that he feared removal to Mexico, it canceled his removal to 27 Mexico and coordinated with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to 28 schedule a screening to determine Petitioner’s eligibility for protection under § 241(b)(3) 1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture. Id. ¶¶ 13–14. 2 Should USCIS determine that Petitioner is not eligible for protection, Respondents will 3 reinitiate its efforts to remove Petitioner to Mexico. Id. ¶ 15. 4 Petitioner seeks habeas and injunctive relief from the Court by asserting the 5 following claims: (1) In revoking Petitioner’s release, Respondents have failed to comply 6 with their own regulations, which violates the APA and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. 7 Constitution; (2) Petitioner’s re-detention violates Zadvydas v. Davis because for the last 8 eleven years, the Government has been unable to remove him and cannot show that there 9 is a "significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." 533 U.S. 678, 10 701 (2001); and (3) Respondents’ practice of removing noncitizens, such as Petitioner, to 11 a third country without providing an opportunity to assert fear of persecution or torture 12 before an immigration judge also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 13 Pet. at 8-9. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 16 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 17 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 18 custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 19 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus 20 to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal 21 law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means 22 of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections 23 have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). Accordingly, challenges 24 to immigration-related detention are within the purview of a district court's habeas 25 jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also Demore v. Kim, 538 26 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 27 Habeas corpus is “perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law 28 ... affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or 1 confinement.” Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 400 (1963). “The application for the writ usurps 2 the attention and displaces the calendar of the judge or justice who entertains it and receives 3 prompt action from him within the four corners of the application.” Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 4 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 The Court finds that the Parties’ arguments with respect to whether: (1) the 7 Government failed to comply with its own regulations when it revoked Petitioner’s release; 8 and (2) Petitioner’s detention comports with Zadvydas, are analogous to those raised in the 9 Court’s recent decision in Saengphet v. Noem, et al., No: 25-cv-2909-JES-BLM, 2025 WL 10 3240808, at *2-9 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025). The Court, therefore, elects to follow the 11 reasoning it stated in Saengphet and incorporates it by reference. Id. 12 A. Jurisdiction 13 As a threshold matter, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252's jurisdiction stripping 14 provisions do not bar this Court from considering Petitioner's habeas petition. Thus, the 15 Court has jurisdiction to hear the Petition. 16 The Court finds that the Parties’ arguments with respect to whether: (1) the 17 Government failed to comply with its own regulations when it revoked Petitioner’s release; 18 and (2) Petitioner’s detention comports with Zadvydas, are analogous to those raised in the 19 Court’s recent decision in Saengphet v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JULIO CESAR VARONA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3328-JES-SBC
12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING COUNT ONE OF 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF Department of Homeland Security; 15 HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of 28 U.S.C. § 2241; 16 the United States; TODD M. LYONS,
Acting Director, Immigration and Customs 17 (2) DENYING AS MOOT COUNT Enforcement; JESUS ROCHA, Acting TWO AND THREE OF THE 18 Field Office Director, San Diego Field PETITION, AND MOTION FOR Office; and CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, 19 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention ORDER 20 Center, San Diego, California.
21 Respondents.
22 [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 23 24 25 26 Before the Court is Petitioner Julio Cesar Varona’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ 27 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Motion for a Temporary Restraining 28 Order (“TRO”). ECF No. 1, (“Pet.”); ECF No. 2, (“TRO”). The Petition and TRO were 1 filed on November 26, 2025. Id. Respondents filed their Response on December 3, 2025. 2 ECF No. 6, (“Res.”). Petitioner filed his Traverse on December 4, 2025. ECF No. 7. 3 Thereafter, the Court took the matter under submission. 4 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Count One of the Petition for 5 Writ of Habeas Corpus, DENIES AS MOOT Counts Two and Three of the Petition, and 6 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 7 I. BACKGROUND 8 Petitioner is a citizen and national of Cuba, who entered the United States in 1995, 9 and was later convicted for sexual battery of a minor. See ECF No. 6-4, (“Res. Dec.”), ¶ 4. 10 On September 26, 2001, Petitioner was booked into Immigration and Customs 11 Enforcement (“ICE”) custody in Miami, Florida Id. ¶ 6. On September 26, 2001, an 12 Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed to Cuba, following his stipulated request 13 for a removal order. Id. ¶ 7; ECF No. 6-1. On February 5, 2002, ICE released Petitioner 14 from custody on an Order of Supervision. Res. Dec. ¶ 8. 15 On October 22, 2025, ICE arrested Petitioner after being identified for an 16 enforcement operation and re-detained him at the Krome Detention Center. Id. ¶ 9. After 17 his arrest, Petitioner was served with a written Notice of Revocation of Release (“Notice”) 18 and given an informal interview. Id.; ECF No. 6-2. Since his re-detention, ICE has 19 attempted to effectuate Petitioner’s removal. See Res. Dec. ¶¶ 9–12. 20 After repatriation efforts to Cuba proved unsuccessful, ICE identified Mexico as a 21 third country where Petitioner may be removed. Id. ¶¶ 10–11. On November 16, 2025, ICE 22 served Petitioner with a Notice of Removal, notifying him of its intent to remove him to 23 Mexico. Id. ¶ 11; ECF No. 6-3. On November 23, 2025, ICE transferred Petitioner to the 24 Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, California to execute his removal to Mexico on 25 November 28, 2025. Res. Dec. ¶ 12. After ICE was notified of Petitioner’s habeas petition 26 and declaration attesting that he feared removal to Mexico, it canceled his removal to 27 Mexico and coordinated with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to 28 schedule a screening to determine Petitioner’s eligibility for protection under § 241(b)(3) 1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture. Id. ¶¶ 13–14. 2 Should USCIS determine that Petitioner is not eligible for protection, Respondents will 3 reinitiate its efforts to remove Petitioner to Mexico. Id. ¶ 15. 4 Petitioner seeks habeas and injunctive relief from the Court by asserting the 5 following claims: (1) In revoking Petitioner’s release, Respondents have failed to comply 6 with their own regulations, which violates the APA and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. 7 Constitution; (2) Petitioner’s re-detention violates Zadvydas v. Davis because for the last 8 eleven years, the Government has been unable to remove him and cannot show that there 9 is a "significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." 533 U.S. 678, 10 701 (2001); and (3) Respondents’ practice of removing noncitizens, such as Petitioner, to 11 a third country without providing an opportunity to assert fear of persecution or torture 12 before an immigration judge also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 13 Pet. at 8-9. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 16 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 17 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 18 custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 19 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus 20 to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal 21 law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means 22 of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections 23 have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). Accordingly, challenges 24 to immigration-related detention are within the purview of a district court's habeas 25 jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also Demore v. Kim, 538 26 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 27 Habeas corpus is “perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law 28 ... affording as it does a swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or 1 confinement.” Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 400 (1963). “The application for the writ usurps 2 the attention and displaces the calendar of the judge or justice who entertains it and receives 3 prompt action from him within the four corners of the application.” Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 4 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 The Court finds that the Parties’ arguments with respect to whether: (1) the 7 Government failed to comply with its own regulations when it revoked Petitioner’s release; 8 and (2) Petitioner’s detention comports with Zadvydas, are analogous to those raised in the 9 Court’s recent decision in Saengphet v. Noem, et al., No: 25-cv-2909-JES-BLM, 2025 WL 10 3240808, at *2-9 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025). The Court, therefore, elects to follow the 11 reasoning it stated in Saengphet and incorporates it by reference. Id. 12 A. Jurisdiction 13 As a threshold matter, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252's jurisdiction stripping 14 provisions do not bar this Court from considering Petitioner's habeas petition. Thus, the 15 Court has jurisdiction to hear the Petition. 16 The Court finds that the Parties’ arguments with respect to whether: (1) the 17 Government failed to comply with its own regulations when it revoked Petitioner’s release; 18 and (2) Petitioner’s detention comports with Zadvydas, are analogous to those raised in the 19 Court’s recent decision in Saengphet v. Noem, et al., No: 25-cv-2909-JES-BLM, 2025 WL 20 3240808, at *2-9 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025). The Court, therefore, elects to follow the 21 reasoning it stated in Saengphet and incorporates it by reference. Id. 22 B. Count One 23 The Court finds that the Government failed to comply with its self-propagated 24 regulations that govern the revocation of a noncitizen’s release. The Court finds further 25 that this resulted in a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As a 26 result, Count One of the Petition will be granted, and Respondents will be ordered to release 27 Petitioner. 28 // 1 The Court finds that the Notice, which contains Respondents’ reasons for revoking 2 Petitioner’s release, is defective. This is because the Notice’s stated justifications fail to 3 articulate any facts, that are specific to Petitioner, which constitute changed circumstances 4 in support of ICE’s determination that there is “significant likelihood that the alien may be 5 removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.” See ECF No. 6-2 at 2; 8 C.F.R § 241.13(2). 6 Such justifications are conclusory and, therefore, fall short of what the regulation requires. 7 See id.; see also Sarail A. v. Bondi, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 2533673, at *10 (D. 8 Minn. 2025). 9 C. Counts Two and Three and Temporary Restraining Order 10 Having ruled on the Petition on the merits, the Court declines to address Counts Two 11 and Three, or apply the Winter factors to determine whether to issue a TRO. Winter v. Nat. 12 Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Court, therefore, DENIES AS MOOT 13 Counts Two and Three of the Petition and the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 In sum, the Government failed to follow its own regulations when it revoked 16 Petitioner’s release because it failed to provide him with adequate notice of its reasons for 17 doing so. This resulted in substantial prejudice to Petitioner in the informal interview, when 18 he was supposed to challenge the revocation of his release. The Government’s 19 noncompliance resulted in a violation of Petitioner's Constitutional due process rights. 20 Accordingly, Petitioner's habeas Petition is GRANTED and Petitioner is ORDERED 21 RELEASED. 22 Based on the foregoing: 23 (1) The Court GRANTS Count One of the Petition; 24 (2) As Petitioner’s sought after relief was granted, with respect to Count 25 One, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Counts Two and Three, and the 26 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; 27 (3) Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from 28 custody, under the same conditions as previously imposed, and to FILE 1 a Notice of Compliance within ten days to confirm when the Petitioner 2 has been released; 3 (4) In the event Petitioner seeks further habeas relief arising from the 4 Government’s conduct related to its future execution of the removal 5 order, Petitioner must FILE a new Petition; and 6 (5) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this suit. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: December 8, 2025
10 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6B