District of Nevada • 2:25-cv-01921

#1

Oct 07, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANVDC-8205544) by David Alberto Perez Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons) (Lippmann, Daniel) (Entered: 10/07/2025)

#2

Oct 07, 2025

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Petitioner David Alberto Perez Sanchez. Responses due by 10/21/2025. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lippmann, Daniel) (Entered: 10/07/2025)

#3

Oct 07, 2025

EXHIBIT to 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Petitioner David Alberto Perez Sanchez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C, # 3 Exhibit D, # 4 Exhibit E, # 5 Exhibit F, # 6 Exhibit G)(Lippmann, Daniel) (Entered: 10/07/2025)

Oct 07, 2025

Case randomly assigned to Judge Richard F. Boulware, II and Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III. ***Emergency motion previously filed in case.*** (MAM)

#4

Oct 08, 2025

Summons Issued as to USA

#5

Oct 08, 2025

Declaration

#6

Oct 08, 2025

Declaration

#7

Oct 08, 2025

Declaration

Oct 08, 2025

Assign Judges in Civil Case

#8

Oct 09, 2025

Order AND ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines & Hearings (non motion deadlines)

#9

Oct 09, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 10/9/2025. Before the Court for consideration is the 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Petitioner David Alberto Perez Sanchez. A Motion Hearing is set for 10/17/2025 at 11:15 AM in LV Courtroom 7C before Judge Richard F. Boulware II. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 10/09/2025)

Oct 09, 2025

Minute Order Setting Hearing on Motion

#10

Oct 14, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 10/14/2025.The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the 1 Petition and finds that Petitioner(s) may be a member/members of the pending putative habeas class actions in Case Nos. 25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY and 2:25-cv-01553-RFB-BNW. The Court will set a status conference in all related actions to discuss the possibility of coordination between counsel for Petitioners and/or consolidation.Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel for Petitioner(s) appear for a status conference on 10/17/2025 at 9:30 AM in LV Courtroom 7C before Judge Richard Boulware, II. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 10/14/2025)

Oct 14, 2025

Minute Order

#11

Oct 16, 2025

Notice Appearance of Counsel

#12

Oct 16, 2025

Response

#13

Oct 17, 2025

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Motion Hearing held on 10/17/2025 before Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. Crtrm Administrator: D Smith; Pla Counsel: Daniel Lippman; Def Counsel: Summer Johnson; Court Reporter: J Moore; Time of Hearing: 11:40 - 11:46; Courtroom: 7C; The Court and parties discuss the 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. The matter is under advisement and a separate minute order shall issue. The Government is on notice to alert DHS that about the forthcoming order. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) (Entered: 10/17/2025)

#14

Oct 17, 2025

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 10/17/2025. Pending before the Court is Petitioner's 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On July 10, 2025, an Immigration Judge (IJ) of the Las Vegas Immigration Court found by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was neither a flight risk nor dangerous, and that Petitioners continued detention pending the conclusion of removal proceedings was therefore not warranted. The IJ ordered Petitioner to be released on bond. Petitioner has remained detained since then pursuant to DHS invocation of an automatic stay under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2), which this Court has already found unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, both facially and as applied to individuals like Petitioner. See Herrera v. Knight, No. 2:25-CV-01366-RFB-DJA, 2025 WL 2581792, at *9-12 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2025); Vazquez v. Feeley, et al., No. 2:25-CV-01542-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2676082, at *16-23 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025). The Court notes Respondents have failed to evidence that they satisfied the requirements of the automatic stay provision, which requires a senior DHS legal official to certify that "their contentions justifying the continued detention of [Petitioner] have evidentiary support." See 8 CFR § 1003.6(c)(1) (emphasis added). If no such certification exists, the automatic stay has lapsed by its own terms and Petitioner's continued detention is unlawful, even assuming arguendo Respondents' assertion that the automatic stay satisfies procedural due process (it does not). The Court further finds that Petitioner has satisfied the Winter factors and is entitled to a preliminary injunction ordering his release on bond. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that the public interest favors an injunction. Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 758 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended (Mar. 11, 2014) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). The Court further finds that Petitioner has satisfied the Winter factors. As an initial matter, the Court has habeas jurisdiction to review Petitioners challenge to the lawfulness of his detention, because the relevant jurisdiction stripping provisions of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 do not apply, as discussed and held by the Court in granting relief to similarly situated petitioners, which the Court fully incorporates by reference. See Vazquez, 2025 WL 2676082, at *7-9; Roman v. Noem, et al., No. 2:25-CV-01684-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2710211, at *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2025). Further, 8 U.S.C. 1226(e) does not apply to preclude this Courts review, because the Ninth Circuit has held that while the Attorney General's "discretionary judgment" is not subject to review, claims that the discretionary process itself is legally and constitutionally flawed are "cognizable in federal court on habeas because they fit comfortably within the scope of § 2241." Gutierrez-Chavez v. INS, 298 F.3d 825, 829 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court also fully incorporates by reference its finding that administrative exhaustion is excused as futile. See Herrera, 2025 WL 2581792, at *7-8; Vazquez, 2025 WL 2676082, at *9-10. The Court also fully incorporates by reference its reasoning and holding regarding the statutory question. Vazquez. WL 2676082, at *11-22. The Court further finds Petitioner has established a likelihood of success on the merits of his due process challenge to the automatic stay for the same reasons set forth in Herrera and Vazquez. "Due process requires adequate procedural protections to ensure that the government's asserted justification for physical confinement outweighs the individual's constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint." Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court finds, again, that the automatic stay provides no such procedural protections, and that the Government's asserted justification for confinement--based solely on an unlawful reinterpretation of its detention authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act--does not outweigh the continued deprivation of Petitioners liberty. Further, it follows inexorably from the Court's determination that Petitioner will continue to be deprived of his physical liberty unconstitutionally in the absence of an injunction that Petitioner has met his burden to show immediate and irreparable harm. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 995 (9th Cir. 2017). Likewise, the minimal, if not nonexistent, burden on the Government of preserving the status quo, i.e., ordering Petitioner's release consistent with the order of the IJ, as compared to the preventable human suffering, e.g., financial, emotional, and medical burdens on both Petitioner and his family in addition to the fundamental harm of arbitrary detention without meaningful due process, demonstrates that the balance of the equities and public interest tip sharply in Petitioner's favor. Id. at 995-96 ("the public interest benefits from an injunction that ensures that individuals are not deprived of their liberty and held in immigration detention because of... a likely unconstitutional process.).Based on the foregoing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents are ENJOINED from continuing to detain Petitioner pursuant to the C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2) automatic stay or otherwise denying Petitioner release on bond on the basis that he is subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents must release Petitioner from ICE custody by 5:00 p.m. on October 18, 2025. Petitioner shall be subject to the bond and other conditions imposed by the IJ. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall have until 5:00 p.m. on October 27, 2025 to satisfy the bond conditions. If he does not satisfy them, he will be subject to rearrest and detention. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - IML) (Entered: 10/17/2025)

Oct 17, 2025

Minute Order AND Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Oct 17, 2025

Motion Hearing

#15

Oct 22, 2025

Summons Returned Executed as to USA