Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01847

#1

Mar 24, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against John Archambeault, Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-20938429.), filed by Carmen Roman Chun Ambrocio. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Case Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1847-JO-MSB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg are assigned to the case. (Gondim, Marcelo)(tac) (sjt). (Entered: 03/24/2026)

#2

Mar 24, 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 9, 2026 at 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 3/24/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/24/2026)

Mar 24, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Mar 26, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Mar 31, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

Apr 07, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Carmen Roman Chun Ambrocio filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention as a violation of due process. Dkt. 1. 1. Petitioner has resided in the country for nearly two decades with no criminal history. Dkt. 1 P. 7. Since his entry, the government initiated removal proceedings and subsequently detained him in immigration custody. See Dkt. 1 PP. 7-10. On March 18, 2026, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied Petitioner's motion for custody redetermination for lack of jurisdiction under the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), which held that noncitizens present in the United States without inspection or admission are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Id. P. 8. 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 his current detention; and (ii) Petitioner is subject to the discretionary detention framework of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), because he was already residing in the United States at the time of his arrest. See Dkt. 1 PP. 7-10; Dkt. 4 at 2.3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by depriving him of his freedom from physical confinement without an individualized determination assessing his 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"). In Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit recognized that a noncitizen's interest in freedom from physical confinement itself constitutes a core liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. The IJ denied Petitioner the right to seek review of his custody determination after finding lack of jurisdiction under § 1225(b)(2), a statute that does not apply to Petitioner. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1). 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 his continued detention. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). The absence of any individualized determination significantly risked erroneously depriving Petitioner of his 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 and orders his immediate release.4. Because Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to justify detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the Court further enjoins Respondents from redetaining him without first providing a bond hearing before an immigration judge to justify a deprivation of his 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 ordinarily provides for a bond hearing after detention, a pre-deprivation hearing is the more appropriate remedy for individuals like Petitioner who have already been subjected to unconstitutional detention. In order to prevent any further erroneous deprivation of his 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 4/7/2026. (mk) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

#6

Apr 07, 2026

Order

Apr 07, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#7

Apr 08, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#8

Apr 09, 2026

Status Report

#9

Apr 30, 2026

Miscellaneous (Other 1)

#10

Apr 30, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous (Other 1)