govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-00843-1

1 
26cv843-LL-BJW 
1 
2 
3 
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 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
SAREDO ROBLE, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, SENIOR 
WARDEN, 
Respondents. 

 
ORDER DENYING AMENDED 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 
CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 
 
[ECF No. 14] 
 
Before the Court is Petitioner Saredo Roble’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 
Corpus (“Pet.”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 14. The Court denied Petitioner’s 
previous habeas petition without prejudice on March 27, 2026. ECF No. 12. Respondents 
filed a Return, and Petitioner filed a Traverse. ECF Nos. 16, 17. For the reasons set forth 
below, the Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s instant Petition. 
I. BACKGROUND 
 For ease of reference, the Court incorporates by reference the background section 
from the March 27, 2026 Order issued in this case. See ECF No. 12 at 1-3. Petitioner’s 
instant Petition seeks Petitioner’s immediate release on the grounds that her continued 
“detention violates Zadvydas and 8 U.S.C. § 1231.” Pet. at 10. Petitioner argues that she 
“demonstrates that there is no significant likelihood [of] removal in the reasonably 
foreseeable future” and that “ICE must provide adequate notice and an opportunity to be 
heard before removing Ms. Roble to a third country.” Id. at 13, 15-16. Respondents filed a 
Return in which they argue that “Plaintiff’s four -month detention falls well within the 
Case 3:26-cv-00843-LL-BJW Document 19 Filed 06/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4
 
2 
26cv843-LL-BJW 
1 
2 
3 
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 
removal period deemed reasonable under Zadvydas” and that “the Court lacks jurisdiction 
over Petitioner’s remaining arguments.” ECF No. 16 at 3-5 (hereinafter “Return”). 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
 A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus when a petitioner “is in custody 
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2241(c); Magana-Pizano v. I.N.S., 200 F.3d 603, 609 (9th Cir. 1999) (“28 U.S.C. § 2241 
expressly permits the federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to aliens when those 
aliens are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 
States.’”). In federal habeas proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proving his case 
by a preponderance of evidence. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 970 n.16 (9th Cir. 
2004); Bellew v. Gunn, 532 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1976) (citations omitted). 
III. DISCUSSION 
Petitioner argues in her operative Petition that her detention violates Zadvydas and 
8 U.S.C. § 1231. Pet. at 9; see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Specifically, 
Petitioner argues that she has rebutted the presumption that her removal is reasonably 
foreseeable, because she remains in custody and Respondents have made “zero progress 
on removing her.” Pet. at 3. 
Respondents argue that Petitioner’s “four -month detention falls well within the 
removal period deemed reasonable under Zadvydas” and that efforts to remove Petitioner 
to Uganda are progressing. Return at 3. Respondents state in relevant part: 
Since Petitioner was ordered removed, the agency has worked diligently to 
effectuate her removal to Uganda, a country she had a full opportunity to 
oppose during her immigration hearing; ICE does not intend to remove 
Petitioner to a third country. Efforts to remove Petitioner to Uganda are 
progressing. See Cole Decl., ¶¶10-11, ECF No. 7.1. 
 
On January 20, 2026, ICE submitted a travel document request for Uganda to 
ERO Removal and International Operations (RIO) headquarters for review. 
Id. at ¶12. On February 19, 2026, ICE requested an update from RIO 
headquarters. On February 26, 2026, RIO informed ICE that the travel 
document request was forwarded to the Ugandan government for review. Id. 
Case 3:26-cv-00843-LL-BJW Document 19 Filed 06/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4
 
3 
26cv843-LL-BJW 
1 
2 
3 
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 
at ¶¶ 13-14. That remains the current status. 
Return at 2-3. 
The Court finds that Petitioner’s detention of approximately four months is 
presumptively reasonable, and therefore her claim is premature. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 
701; see also, e.g., Khalilova v. Smith, No. 25-CV-2140 JLS (DDL), 2025 WL 3089522, 
at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2025) (finding the petitioner’s habeas petition premature when the 
six-month period had not passed). Additionally, Petitioner has not met her burden to 
provide good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the 
reasonably foreseeable future. The cases that Petitioner relies on to support her argument 
that other courts have found that petitioners rebutted the presumption are not applicable to 
Petitioner’s facts. For example, Petitioner cites to Riveros Cadavid v. Dep’t of Homeland 
Security, No. EDCV 26-01805-KK-DTBX, 2026 WL 1105032, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 
2026). However, in that case, Petitioner’s habeas petition was unopposed. Also, the 
government in that case sought to remove the petitioner to a third-country removal of 
Honduras to which petitioner had no ties. Unlike the petitioner in Riveros Cadavid, in this 
case, Uganda is not a third -country removal as Petitioner resided there from March 2016 
through March 2018; and then again from January 2019 through July 2019. ECF No. 10 at 
17-18. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s current detention does not violate 
Zadvydas or the Due Process Clause. 
Additionally, Petitioner’s argument that she is entitled to notice and an opportunity 
to be heard before removing her to a third-country is also without merit because Uganda is 
not a third-country removal for Petitioner. As set forth above, Petitioner resided in Uganda 
for almost two and a half years. Accordingly, Petitioner’s arguments on this basis also have 
no merit. 
/ / / 
/ / / 
/ / / 
/ / / 
Case 3:26-cv-00843-LL-BJW Document 19 Filed 06/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4
 
4 
26cv843-LL-BJW 
1 
2 
3 
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 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition (ECF No. 14) 
without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 15, 2026 
 
 
Case 3:26-cv-00843-LL-BJW Document 19 Filed 06/15/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight