govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-03334-0

- 1 - 
26cv3344 
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 
 
OSVER RUDIN PEREZ GARCIA, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 
Respondents. 

 
ORDER GRANTING PETITION 
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 
(ECF No. 1) 
 
 
Petitioner Osver Rudin Perez Garcia filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2241, claiming he was improperly detained after he was released on parole into the 
United States as a minor eight years ago. (ECF No. 1.) The Government filed a response. 
(ECF No. 4.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and orders that 
Petitioner be released on the same terms and conditions as he was previously released. 
I. LEGAL STANDARD 
 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 
States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the writ 
is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 
A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 
custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies 
Case 3:26-cv-03334-BAS-JAC Document 7 Filed 06/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3
 
- 2 - 
26cv3344 
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 
to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 
(2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he has 
standing to pursue this Petition. 
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 
 Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States as a child in 2018. (ECF 
No. 1, at ¶¶ 1, 9.) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) paroled him into the 
United States. (Id. ¶¶ 10–11.) Petitioner resided in the United States, maintained 
employment, and complied with all directives from ICE. ( Id. ¶ 12.) He never received a 
hearing notice or a court date. ( Id.) He now has three U.S. citizen children. ( Id. ¶ 15.) He 
has no criminal convictions. ( Id. ¶ 13.) On May 1, 2026, the Department of Homeland 
Security (“DHS”) re-detained Petitioner in Florida without notice or an opportunity to be 
heard. (Id. ¶ 14.) He has now been transferred to Otay Mesa Detention Center in this 
district. ( Id.) Petitioner seeks immediate release on the same conditions as he was 
previously released. 
III. ANALYSIS 
 Petitioner’s re-detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard and without 
noticeably changed circumstances violates Petitioner’s d ue process rights. Individuals 
released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a liberty interest in 
continued liberty. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (parolees); 
Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 
778, 782 (1973) (probationers). Thus, this Court agrees with those courts that have held: 
[O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from 
rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, 
the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed 
circumstances— namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or 
has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. And if 
the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his 
rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge. 
Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176–77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet 
v. Singh , No. 26 -cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) 
Case 3:26-cv-03334-BAS-JAC Document 7 Filed 06/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3
 
- 3 - 
26cv3344 
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 
(“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the 
government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody 
creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be 
revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting 
Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))). 
 Because ICE released Petitioner upon finding he was not a flight risk or a danger to 
the community in 2018 , and because there is no evidence those circumstances have 
changed, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same conditions as he was initially 
released. If DHS believes circumstances have changed, it must provide notice of these 
changed circumstances to Petitioner and provide Petitioner an opportunity to be heard 
promptly before an Immigration Judge. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 
The Court ORDERS that Petitioner Osver Rudin Perez Garcia (A#215-613-
225) be released on the same terms and conditions as he was previously 
released in 2018. 
The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
DATED: June 16, 2026 
 
 
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 
United States District Court 
Case 3:26-cv-03334-BAS-JAC Document 7 Filed 06/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight