govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-03249-0

1 
26-cv-3249-JES MMP 
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 
 
KAREN PASTOR-GALEANA, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior 
Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; 
PATRICK DIVVER, Field Office 
Director, San Diego Office of Detention 
and Removal, U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement; TODD M. 
LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 
and MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 
Respondents. 

 
ORDER GRANTING PETITION 
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 
 
[ECF No. 1] 
 
 
Before the Court is Petitioner Karen Pastor -Galeana’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) . ECF No. 1, (“Pet.”). 
Pursuant to the Court's Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 3, Respondents (the "Government") 
filed the Return. ECF No. 6, (“Ret.”). Petitioner filed a Traverse. ECF No. 7. For the 
reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 
Case 3:26-cv-03249-JES-MMP Document 8 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 6
 
2 
26-cv-3249-JES MMP 
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 
I. BACKGROUND 
Petitioner is a 26-year-old native and citizen of Mexico who fled to the United States 
after suffering domestic violence and death threats from her former partner and his family. 
Pet. ¶ 1. She entered the United States on or about February 28, 2023, near N ogales, 
Arizona, and was immediately apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Id. 
¶¶ 2, 13. On March 1, 2023, she was issued a Notice to Appear charging her as an alien 
present in the United States without admission or parole under INA § 212(a)(6 )(A)(i). Id. 
¶ 23; Id. at 23-25 (“NTA”). The NTA noted that an asylum officer had found a credible 
fear of persecution. See NTA. On March 2, 2023, immigration authorities released 
Petitioner on an Order of Release on Recognizance. Pet. ¶¶ 2, 13; id. at 19. 
For more than three years, Petitioner complied fully with all conditions of her 
release, appeared at all scheduled immigration proceedings, has no criminal history, and 
built a life in the United States. Id. ¶ 3. She is the primary caregiver of her two daughters, 
and Samantha P ., a United States citizen minor. Id. ¶¶ 3, 13 . Petitioner’s asylum 
proceedings are currently pending. Id. ¶¶ 22–23. 
In April 2026, Respondents arrested and detained Petitioner , without providing 
written notice of any parole revocation and without affording her any opportunity to be 
heard. Pet. ¶¶ 26, 31. While detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, 
California, Petitioner sought a custody redetermination before an immigration judge (“IJ”), 
on May 28, 2026. ECF No. 4. The IJ denied her request, finding Petitioner subject to 
mandatory detention under INA § 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) and citing Matter of Yajure 
Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), and the Ninth Circuit’s stay of Maldonado Bautista 
v. DHS, No. 26 -1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). Id . Petitioner reserved her appeal of that 
ruling, with an appeal deadline of June 29, 2026. Id. No administrative remedy for release, 
therefore, remains available to Petitioner. 
// 
// 
// 
Case 3:26-cv-03249-JES-MMP Document 8 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 6
 
3 
26-cv-3249-JES MMP 
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 
II. 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) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 
“The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 
custody, and . . . 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 to be in custody i n violation of the 
Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas 
corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in 
that context that its protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 
(2001). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within the purview 
of a district court's habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see 
also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 
III. DISCUSSION 
In its Return, the Government concedes that Petitioner was previously released from 
immigration custody on conditional parole but maintains she is subject to mandatory 
detention under 8 U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1225(b)(2). Ret. at 2. The Government does not, 
however, dispute the facts underlying the Petition, does not contest that prior decisions in 
this district are controlling, and expressly states that it "does not oppose the petition." Id. 
at 3. The Traverse further demonstrates that the Government’s Return fails to engage with 
the claims actually raised —namely, the unlawful revocation of Petitioner’s conditional 
parole under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Due Process Clause—and 
instead attempts to reframe the case as one involving only the proper statutory basis for 
detention under Sections 1225(b)(2)(A) or 1226(a). ECF No. 7 at 1–2. The Court declines 
to allow the Government to redefine the claims presented.
 
Petitioner presented herself at the border and was immediately apprehended, 
processed, found to have a credible fear, and released on her own recognizance. ECF No. 
7 at 2 ; see Pet. at 19 . Therefore, the relevant legal question is not whether Petitioner is 
Case 3:26-cv-03249-JES-MMP Document 8 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 6
 
4 
26-cv-3249-JES MMP 
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 
entitled to a bond hearing under Section 1226(a), but whether Respondents unlawfully 
revoked her existing conditional parole. 
The Court finds that the legal issues implicated by this Petition —specifically, the 
court's jurisdiction and whether the Government lawfully revoked a noncitizen's 
conditional parole upon re-detention—have been squarely addressed by the undersigned in 
Gergawi v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-3352-JES-MMP, 2025 WL 3719321 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 
2025), and in the related line of cases from this District. The Court elects to follow that 
reasoning and incorporates it by reference. Id. 
A. Jurisdiction 
Although the Government does not contest the Court's jurisdiction, the Court 
confirms it may hear this Petition. The jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 
do not bar this Court from considering Petitioner's habeas claims. See Martinez Lopez v. 
Noem et al. , No. 25 -cv-2717-JES-AHG, 2025 WL 3030457, at *2– 3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 
2025). Federal district courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to hear claims by 
noncitizens challenging the lawfulness of their detention. Demore, 538 U.S. at 517; 
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 687. The Court , therefore, holds that it has jurisdiction over this 
action. 
B. Due Process 
The Due Process Clause protects all individuals in the United States from being 
“deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. 
“[T]he Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including 
aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” 
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 693 (citations omitted). “Freedom from imprisonment— from 
government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the 
liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Id. at 690. 
In Gergawi, the Court —like numerous others in this Circuit— found that the 
Government may only revoke a noncitizen’s conditional parole, after first providing them 
with notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding alleged changed circumstances 
Case 3:26-cv-03249-JES-MMP Document 8 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 6
 
5 
26-cv-3249-JES MMP 
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 
showing them to be dangerous or a flight risk. 2025 WL 3719321, at *3-4; see also Pinchi 
v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (finding same). 
It is undisputed that Respondents voluntarily chose to grant Petitioner conditional 
parole, after she entered the country in 2023. Pet. ¶ 2; Ret. at 2. The Court, therefore, finds 
that in doing so, Respondents created Petitioner’s liberty interest in remaining out of 
immigration custody. See Gergawi, 2025 WL 3719321, at *3 -4; see also Pinchi, 792 F. 
Supp. 3d at 1032. 
Petitioner claims that the Government did not conduct a case-by-case assessment of 
whether changed circumstances exist that warrant the revocation of her parole, prior to it 
recently detaining her. Pet. ¶ 4. Nor did it provide Petitioner with any notice of its intent to 
undertake such activity. Id. Petitioner argues, therefore, the Government failed to follow 
the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to terminate her parole. Id. The 
Government does not contest these accusations and, thus, waives it right to do so. See Ret. 
at 2-3. 
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Government failed to provide Petitioner with 
any notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to revoking h er parole, when it re-detained 
her. This conduct falls short of what the Due Process Clause requires to protect such a 
liberty interest. See Gergawi, 2025 WL 3719321, at *3-4; see also Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d 
at 1032. As a result, the Government violated Petitioner’s due process rights. C.A.R.V. v. 
Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01395 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 3059549, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025); 
Leiva Flores v. Albarran, No. 25-cv-09302-AMO, 2025 WL 3228306, at *5 (S.D. Cal Nov. 
19, 2025); Faizyan v. Casey , No.: 3:25-cv-02884-RBM-JLB, 2025 WL 3208844, at *7 
(S.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2025). Accordingly, the Court will order Petitioner’s immediate 
release. 
C. APA Claim 
The Court declines to decide the merits of Petitioner's APA claim given that the 
Court will grant the relief she seeks, based on its conclusion that Respondents violated her 
due process rights. 
Case 3:26-cv-03249-JES-MMP Document 8 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 6
 
6 
26-cv-3249-JES MMP 
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: 
(1) The Court GRANTS Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 2241; 
(2) Because the Court GRANTS the Petition and concludes that the 
Government’s revocation of the non-citizen’s conditional parole violates 
procedural due process, the Government is ORDERED to 
IMMEDIATELY release the non -citizen from custody, subject to any 
conditions of her preexisting conditional parole; 
(3) The Government is ORDERED to file a Status Report on or before June 
22, 2026, confirming that the non-citizen has been released; and 
(4) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 17, 2026 
 
 
Case 3:26-cv-03249-JES-MMP Document 8 Filed 06/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight