Vincente Salazar-Osorio v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office Director, San D

S.D. California

Vincente Salazar-Osorio v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office Director, San D

DecidedNovember 26, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-03296

StatusUnknown

This text of Vincente Salazar-Osorio v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office Director, San D (Vincente Salazar-Osorio v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office Director, San D) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vincente Salazar-Osorio v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office Director, San D, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VINCENTE SALAZAR-OSORIO Case No.: 25-cv-3296-JES-MMP

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Department of Homeland Security; 15 CORPUS; PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of

16 the United States; TODD M. LYONS, (2) SETTING BRIEFING Acting Director, Immigration and 17 SCHEDULE; and Customs Enforcement; JESUS ROCHA,

18 Acting Field Office Director, San Diego (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF Field Office; and CHRISTOPHER J. 19 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa JURISDICTION 20 Detention Center, San Diego, California.

21 Respondents. [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 22 23 24

25 Before the Court are Petitioner Vincente Salazar-Osorio’s (“Petitioner’s”) Petition 26 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) and Motion for a 27 28 1 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. The Petition and Motion were filed 2 on November 25, 2025. Id. 3 1. The Petition and TRO 4 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO 5 should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6 2, 2025. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the 7 issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition 8 and/or TRO is necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the 9 Petitioner. 10 Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 11 p.m. on Wednesday, December 3, 2025. After the petition has been fully briefed, the 12 Court will determine whether it is appropriate to take the matter under submission or if oral 13 argument will be required. 14 The Court provides notice to the Parties that it intends to consolidate the Motion for 15 a Temporary Restraining Order with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). 16 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep't of Lab. & 17 Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by 18 giving "clear and unambiguous notice"). In other words, the Court intends to resolve both 19 the Petition and the TRO. 20 2. Stay of Petitioner’s Removal 21 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 22 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 23 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 24 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 25 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 26 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 27 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 28 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, | || attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 2 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 3 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 4 ||injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 5 the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 6 || Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 7 approval from the court). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: November 26, 2025 10 Str J. 11 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 VINCENTE SALAZAR-OSORIO Case No.: 25-cv-3296-JES-MMP

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Department of Homeland Security; 15 CORPUS; PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of

16 the United States; TODD M. LYONS, (2) SETTING BRIEFING Acting Director, Immigration and 17 SCHEDULE; and Customs Enforcement; JESUS ROCHA,

18 Acting Field Office Director, San Diego (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF Field Office; and CHRISTOPHER J. 19 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa JURISDICTION 20 Detention Center, San Diego, California.

21 Respondents. [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 22 23 24

25 Before the Court are Petitioner Vincente Salazar-Osorio’s (“Petitioner’s”) Petition 26 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) and Motion for a 27 28 1 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. The Petition and Motion were filed 2 on November 25, 2025. Id. 3 1. The Petition and TRO 4 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO 5 should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 6 2, 2025. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the 7 issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition 8 and/or TRO is necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the 9 Petitioner. 10 Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 11 p.m. on Wednesday, December 3, 2025. After the petition has been fully briefed, the 12 Court will determine whether it is appropriate to take the matter under submission or if oral 13 argument will be required. 14 The Court provides notice to the Parties that it intends to consolidate the Motion for 15 a Temporary Restraining Order with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). 16 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep't of Lab. & 17 Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by 18 giving "clear and unambiguous notice"). In other words, the Court intends to resolve both 19 the Petition and the TRO. 20 2. Stay of Petitioner’s Removal 21 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 22 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 23 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 24 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 25 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 26 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 27 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 28 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, | || attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 2 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 3 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 4 ||injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 5 the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 6 || Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 7 approval from the court). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: November 26, 2025 10 Str J. 11 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vincente Salazar-Osorio v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office Director, San D, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vincente-salazar-osorio-v-kristi-noem-secretary-us-department-of-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack