1 2
3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 LAURA CARO, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-952-JNW 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 NORTHWEST IMMIGRATION AND 11 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT PROCESSING CENTER, 12 Respondent. 13
14 1. INTRODUCTION 15 Petitioner Laura Caro, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), filed 16 this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, seeking release from 17 immigration detention. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES in part Caro’s 18 petition, DIRECTS her to file an amended petition naming the warden of the 19 Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”) as respondent, and ORDERS the 20 Government to file a supplemental response addressing the adequacy of Caro’s bond 21 hearing. 22 23 1 2. BACKGROUND 2 Caro is a citizen of Mexico in the custody of Immigration and Customs
3 Enforcement (ICE) at NWIPC in Tacoma, Washington since September 6, 2025. 4 Dkt. No. 12 ¶¶ 4, 8. As of the date of this order, Caro has been detained for 5 approximately eight months. On October 22, 2025, an immigration judge ordered 6 Caro removed to Mexico, and Caro appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. 7 Id. ¶¶ 12-13. Her appeal remains pending. Id. ¶ 13. 8 On March 20, 2026, Caro filed this habeas petition via mail, alleging that the
9 Government is detaining her unlawfully because she submitted a U visa 10 application, which has been pending since 2021 or 2022,1 and because her detention 11 has extended beyond 180 days. Dkt. Nos. 1; 8 at 3. 12 On March 19, 2026, the Court received a different habeas petition filed by an 13 attorney on Caro’s behalf. See Ulin Valdez et al. v. Hernandez et al., 2:26-cv-937- 14 TMC (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2026). Caro and her co-petitioners argued that the 15 Government violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by applying the
16 mandatory detention statute at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because they are entitled to 17 consideration for release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at Dkt. No. 1 at 5. On 18 March 27, 2026, the Court granted Caro’s petition and found her subject to 19 discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Accordingly, the Court ordered the 20 Government to either release Caro or provide her with a bond hearing under 8 21 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at Dkt. No. 11.
22 1 The exact date that Caro filed her U visa application is not clear from the record 23 before the Court. 1 On April 9, 2026, Caro attended a bond hearing. The Immigration Judge 2 (“IJ”) found Caro failed to show she is “not a Flight Risk” and denied bond. Dkt. No.
3 13-1 at 2. The IJ’s order is a checkbox form—no reasoning is provided beyond the 4 checked boxes. Id. 5 In her reply, Caro objects to the bond hearing proceedings. Dkt. No. 14 at 3. 6 Her objections, written by hand in English (which appears to be her second 7 language), raise concerns about the accuracy of information presented to the 8 Immigration Judge and about whether she was afforded an adequate opportunity to
9 be heard. The Court addresses these objections below. 10 3. DISCUSSION 11 3.1 Successive petition. 12 The Government argues that Caro improperly filed a successive habeas 13 petition raising the same points as her petition in Ulin Valdez et al. v. Hernandez et 14 al. and that having a pending U visa application does not render her detention 15 automatically unlawful. The Court agrees in part. 16 Under the abuse of the writ doctrine, a successive petition that raises 17 identical grounds for relief as a prior petition must be dismissed unless the 18 petitioner can show (1) cause for bringing a successive petition and that prejudice 19 would result or (2) that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from 20 failure to entertain the claim. Alaimalo v. U.S., 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011) 21 (citation omitted). To the extent that Caro argues the same grounds as her prior 22 23 1 petition—namely, that she is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)— 2 her petition is successive, and the Court finds no reason to reexamine those points.
3 However, Caro’s challenge to the adequacy of her April 9, 2026, bond hearing 4 is not successive. That hearing had not yet occurred when the first petition was filed 5 and resolved. The successive petition doctrine does not bar claims arising from 6 events postdating the prior petition. See Alaimalo, 645 F.3d at 1049. The Court 7 therefore considers Caro’s bond hearing challenge on its own terms, as discussed 8 below.
9 3.2 Pending U Visa application. 10 Caro argues that she should be released in light of her pending U visa 11 application. The Court finds this insufficient to grant Caro relief. This Court and 12 many others in this circuit have held that if the Government grants a U visa 13 applicant deferred action status, it cannot remove that person, and therefore, the 14 Government has no legal basis to detain them. See Ayala v. Bondi, No. 2:25-CV- 15 01063-JNW-TLF, 2025 WL 2209708, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 4, 2025); Alvarado v. 16 Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01959-DJC-CSK, 2026 WL 99885, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 17 2026). Caro’s case is distinguishable because she has not said that the Government 18 has granted her deferred action status. A pending U visa application alone is not 19 enough to make her detention per se unlawful. 20 The Court notes that Caro included a copy of an expired Employment 21 Authorization Card issued in 2015 and valid to 2017. Dkt. No. 14-1 at 4. The 22 eligibility category is listed as “C14,” which appears to be the category for 23 1 applicants granted deferred action. See Form I-765 Instructions, U.S. Citizenship 2 and Immigration Services, Aug. 21, 2025, available at: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/
3 default/files/document/forms/i-765instr.pdf (last visited May 6, 2026). On the 4 document, Caro writes “[m]y permit to work . . . 2015–2017. At this time[,] I am 5 waiting from 2020 to 2023 waiting list to renew[] my [U visa] at Holy Cross 6 ministries.” Dkt. No. 14-1 at 4. This document and note do not, standing alone, 7 demonstrate that the Government has granted Caro deferred action status. 8 But the C14 category designation on Caro’s expired Employment
9 Authorization Card does suggest she may have previously been granted deferred 10 action. Because deferred action status would bear directly on the lawfulness of 11 Caro’s detention, the Court directs both parties to address this issue as set forth 12 below. 13 3.3 Bond hearing challenge. 14 The Government argues that Caro is not entitled to release because the 15 Immigration Judge denied her “request for bond after finding that she had not 16 demonstrated that she is not a flight risk.” Dkt. No. 11. 17 The Court notes that Caro is entitled to challenge the legality and 18 constitutionality of this hearing. Soriano v. Hernandez, No. 2:26-CV-00900-DGE, 19 2026 WL 969764, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2026) (quoting Kharis v. Sessions, 20 Case No. 18-cv-04800-JST, 2018 WL 5809432, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2018)) (“[A] 21 district court has jurisdiction to review an [immigration judge’s] discretionary bond 22 denial where that bond denial is challenged as legally erroneous or 23 1 unconstitutional.”). Liberally construing Caro’s pro se traverse, see Erickson v. 2 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the Court finds that Caro’s objections to her bond
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2
3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 LAURA CARO, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-952-JNW 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 NORTHWEST IMMIGRATION AND 11 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT PROCESSING CENTER, 12 Respondent. 13
14 1. INTRODUCTION 15 Petitioner Laura Caro, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), filed 16 this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, seeking release from 17 immigration detention. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES in part Caro’s 18 petition, DIRECTS her to file an amended petition naming the warden of the 19 Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”) as respondent, and ORDERS the 20 Government to file a supplemental response addressing the adequacy of Caro’s bond 21 hearing. 22 23 1 2. BACKGROUND 2 Caro is a citizen of Mexico in the custody of Immigration and Customs
3 Enforcement (ICE) at NWIPC in Tacoma, Washington since September 6, 2025. 4 Dkt. No. 12 ¶¶ 4, 8. As of the date of this order, Caro has been detained for 5 approximately eight months. On October 22, 2025, an immigration judge ordered 6 Caro removed to Mexico, and Caro appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. 7 Id. ¶¶ 12-13. Her appeal remains pending. Id. ¶ 13. 8 On March 20, 2026, Caro filed this habeas petition via mail, alleging that the
9 Government is detaining her unlawfully because she submitted a U visa 10 application, which has been pending since 2021 or 2022,1 and because her detention 11 has extended beyond 180 days. Dkt. Nos. 1; 8 at 3. 12 On March 19, 2026, the Court received a different habeas petition filed by an 13 attorney on Caro’s behalf. See Ulin Valdez et al. v. Hernandez et al., 2:26-cv-937- 14 TMC (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2026). Caro and her co-petitioners argued that the 15 Government violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by applying the
16 mandatory detention statute at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because they are entitled to 17 consideration for release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at Dkt. No. 1 at 5. On 18 March 27, 2026, the Court granted Caro’s petition and found her subject to 19 discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Accordingly, the Court ordered the 20 Government to either release Caro or provide her with a bond hearing under 8 21 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at Dkt. No. 11.
22 1 The exact date that Caro filed her U visa application is not clear from the record 23 before the Court. 1 On April 9, 2026, Caro attended a bond hearing. The Immigration Judge 2 (“IJ”) found Caro failed to show she is “not a Flight Risk” and denied bond. Dkt. No.
3 13-1 at 2. The IJ’s order is a checkbox form—no reasoning is provided beyond the 4 checked boxes. Id. 5 In her reply, Caro objects to the bond hearing proceedings. Dkt. No. 14 at 3. 6 Her objections, written by hand in English (which appears to be her second 7 language), raise concerns about the accuracy of information presented to the 8 Immigration Judge and about whether she was afforded an adequate opportunity to
9 be heard. The Court addresses these objections below. 10 3. DISCUSSION 11 3.1 Successive petition. 12 The Government argues that Caro improperly filed a successive habeas 13 petition raising the same points as her petition in Ulin Valdez et al. v. Hernandez et 14 al. and that having a pending U visa application does not render her detention 15 automatically unlawful. The Court agrees in part. 16 Under the abuse of the writ doctrine, a successive petition that raises 17 identical grounds for relief as a prior petition must be dismissed unless the 18 petitioner can show (1) cause for bringing a successive petition and that prejudice 19 would result or (2) that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from 20 failure to entertain the claim. Alaimalo v. U.S., 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011) 21 (citation omitted). To the extent that Caro argues the same grounds as her prior 22 23 1 petition—namely, that she is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)— 2 her petition is successive, and the Court finds no reason to reexamine those points.
3 However, Caro’s challenge to the adequacy of her April 9, 2026, bond hearing 4 is not successive. That hearing had not yet occurred when the first petition was filed 5 and resolved. The successive petition doctrine does not bar claims arising from 6 events postdating the prior petition. See Alaimalo, 645 F.3d at 1049. The Court 7 therefore considers Caro’s bond hearing challenge on its own terms, as discussed 8 below.
9 3.2 Pending U Visa application. 10 Caro argues that she should be released in light of her pending U visa 11 application. The Court finds this insufficient to grant Caro relief. This Court and 12 many others in this circuit have held that if the Government grants a U visa 13 applicant deferred action status, it cannot remove that person, and therefore, the 14 Government has no legal basis to detain them. See Ayala v. Bondi, No. 2:25-CV- 15 01063-JNW-TLF, 2025 WL 2209708, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 4, 2025); Alvarado v. 16 Noem, No. 1:25-CV-01959-DJC-CSK, 2026 WL 99885, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 17 2026). Caro’s case is distinguishable because she has not said that the Government 18 has granted her deferred action status. A pending U visa application alone is not 19 enough to make her detention per se unlawful. 20 The Court notes that Caro included a copy of an expired Employment 21 Authorization Card issued in 2015 and valid to 2017. Dkt. No. 14-1 at 4. The 22 eligibility category is listed as “C14,” which appears to be the category for 23 1 applicants granted deferred action. See Form I-765 Instructions, U.S. Citizenship 2 and Immigration Services, Aug. 21, 2025, available at: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/
3 default/files/document/forms/i-765instr.pdf (last visited May 6, 2026). On the 4 document, Caro writes “[m]y permit to work . . . 2015–2017. At this time[,] I am 5 waiting from 2020 to 2023 waiting list to renew[] my [U visa] at Holy Cross 6 ministries.” Dkt. No. 14-1 at 4. This document and note do not, standing alone, 7 demonstrate that the Government has granted Caro deferred action status. 8 But the C14 category designation on Caro’s expired Employment
9 Authorization Card does suggest she may have previously been granted deferred 10 action. Because deferred action status would bear directly on the lawfulness of 11 Caro’s detention, the Court directs both parties to address this issue as set forth 12 below. 13 3.3 Bond hearing challenge. 14 The Government argues that Caro is not entitled to release because the 15 Immigration Judge denied her “request for bond after finding that she had not 16 demonstrated that she is not a flight risk.” Dkt. No. 11. 17 The Court notes that Caro is entitled to challenge the legality and 18 constitutionality of this hearing. Soriano v. Hernandez, No. 2:26-CV-00900-DGE, 19 2026 WL 969764, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2026) (quoting Kharis v. Sessions, 20 Case No. 18-cv-04800-JST, 2018 WL 5809432, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2018)) (“[A] 21 district court has jurisdiction to review an [immigration judge’s] discretionary bond 22 denial where that bond denial is challenged as legally erroneous or 23 1 unconstitutional.”). Liberally construing Caro’s pro se traverse, see Erickson v. 2 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the Court finds that Caro’s objections to her bond
3 hearing raise potentially cognizable due process concerns. Dkt. No. 14 at 3. 4 But the record before the Court does not permit resolution of these concerns 5 at this time. The Government’s Return does not address the adequacy of the bond 6 hearing proceedings; it addresses only the outcome. And the Immigration Judge’s 7 order is merely a checkbox form that provides no reasoning—a matter of particular 8 concern given that this hearing was specifically court-ordered as a remedy in the
9 prior habeas case. 10 The Court therefore requires supplemental briefing on the adequacy of Caro’s 11 bond hearing, as set forth below. The Court expects that a constitutionally adequate 12 bond hearing under § 1226(a) will reflect more than a checkbox form with no 13 analysis. 14 3.4 Proper respondent. 15 Caro named the “Northwest Immigration and Customs Enforcement 16 Processing Center” as respondent. The proper respondent in a habeas action 17 challenging present physical confinement is the petitioner’s immediate custodian— 18 the warden of the facility where the petitioner is held. See Doe v. Garland, 109 19 F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024). Caro must amend her petition to name the warden 20 of the NWIPC as respondent within 14 days of this Order. 21 4. CONCLUSION 22 For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS as follows: 23 1 1. Caro’s petition is DENIED to the extent it raises claims identical to those 2 resolved in Ulin Valdez et al. v. Hernandez et al., 2:26-cv-937-TMC.
3 2. Caro is DIRECTED to file an amended petition naming the warden of the 4 NWIPC as respondent within 14 days of this Order. Caro must also 5 include any evidence of deferred action status with her amended petition. 6 Failure to timely file an amended petition will result in denial of 7 the petition in full without further notice. 8 3. The Government is DIRECTED to file a supplemental response within 14
9 days of service of Caro’s amended petition addressing: (a) whether Caro 10 has been granted deferred action status at any point, based on a review of 11 its records and databases; and (b) the adequacy of Caro’s April 9, 2026, 12 bond hearing, including whether accurate information was presented to 13 the Immigration Judge, whether Caro was afforded a meaningful 14 opportunity to be heard through adequate interpretation services, and 15 whether the Immigration Judge’s decision was supported by an
16 individualized determination with stated reasons. 17 4. Petitioner attaches several pages of exhibits to her traverse, Dkt. No. 14- 18 1. These exhibits contain medical records. Because the Court finds that 19 the need to protect medical privacy is a compelling reason that overcomes 20 the presumption of public access, it finds that sealing these records is 21 warranted. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to seal Dkt. No. 14-1.
22 23 1 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Petitioner copies of the Court’s pro se
9 form for § 2241 petitions and the instruction sheet, the Court’s form for
3 application for court-appointed counsel, and a copy of this Order.
4 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to note on the Court’s calendar the 14-
5 day deadline for Caro’s amended petition. 6 7 8 Dated this 18th day of May, 2026. 2 10 mal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23