Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01546

#1

Mar 12, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Christopher J. Larose ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-20889792.), filed by Liu Weiping. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1546-JO-MMP. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit are assigned to the case. (Zohrabyan, Naira)(dde) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

#2

Mar 12, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts the Standard Procedures for this Immigration Habeas Petition from Chief Judge Order No. 144, which is available on the court's website with the following modification: Any optional reply will be due 3 days after the government's opposition. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the Petition for April 2, 9:30 AM in Courtroom 4C. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing, which will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. Parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM the day before the hearing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/12/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/12/2026)

Mar 12, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Mar 19, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Mar 19, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

Apr 01, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Weiping Liu, a citizen of China, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging her detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1. 1. Petitioner entered the United States on April 27, 2023 to seek asylum from political persecution. Dkt. 1 P. 31. Upon entry, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") initiated removal proceedings under Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and released Petitioner on her own recognizance. Id. In September 2024, the government granted Petitioner work authorization. Id. P. 39. Two years after her release, on August 10, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers suddenly arrested Petitioner near State Route 24. Id. P. 33. Petitioner's removal proceedings remain pending, and she has been detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center without a bond hearing since that day. Dkt. 1 PP. 10, 28. 2. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that (i) 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality and legality of her current detention; and (ii) Petitioner is subject to the discretionary detention framework of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), because she was already residing in the United States at the time of her arrest. See Dkt. 1 P. 33. 3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking her release without an individualized determination of flight risk or danger to the public. Mathews v. Elridge, 424 U.S. 319, 321 (1976) (due process analysis considers (1) "the private interest that will be affected by the [government] action"; (2) "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards"; and (3) "the Government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail"). Petitioner acquired a protectable liberty interest when the government previously granted her release on recognizance. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (grant of parole carries an "implicit promise" that liberty will be revoked only for violation of release conditions). The record contains no evidence that Petitioner has a criminal history, poses a danger to the community, or presents a flight risk, and the government has articulated no individualized justification for her continued detention. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). The absence of any individualized determination significantly risked erroneously depriving Petitioner of her liberty interest, and the government has offered no evidence that the burdens of providing such process would outweigh this substantial liberty interest. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has been subjected to unconstitutional detention since her arrest on August 10, 2025 and grants the habeas petition requesting immediate release. 4. Because Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to justify her detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the Court further enjoins Respondent from redetaining Petitioner without first providing a bond hearing before an immigration judge to justify a deprivation of her liberty interest. See, e.g., Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06924-EMC (EMC), 2025 WL 2637503, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025); Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, 801 F. Supp. 3d 919, 938 (N.D. Cal. 2025); O.G. v. Albarran, No. 1:26-CV-00010-TLN-DMC, 2026 WL 19105, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2026). While § 1226 allows the government to hold a noncitizen in custody while it decides whether to initially grant release, a pre-deprivation hearing is the more appropriate remedy for individuals like Petitioner who already enjoy a liberty interest. In order to prevent an erroneous deprivation of that existing liberty interest and satisfy due process requirements, this hearing must take place prior to any detention. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779-80 (2008) (while habeas relief commonly includes release from physical imprisonment, "depending on the circumstances, more [relief] may be required"); Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that petitioner's release--revocable at the government's discretion--did not provide complete relief where petitioner sought a legal ruling that he could only be redetained upon a bond hearing); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 376 n.3 (2005) (despite release, petitioner's habeas claim challenging the statutory authority for his detention "continue[d] to present a live case or controversy" because the court could provide relief to prevent redetention on the same allegedly unlawful basis). The Court's order and injunctive terms are set forth at Dkt. 6. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/1/2026. (mk) (Entered: 04/01/2026)

#6

Apr 01, 2026

Order

Apr 01, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#7

Apr 03, 2026

Declaration