Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01884

#1

Mar 24, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Gregory J. Archambeault, Pamela Bondi, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Christopher J. Larose, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-20942256.), filed by Bulmaro Colin Chaparro. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Case Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Immigration Judge Order)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1884-JO-SBC. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu are assigned to the case. (Hilts, Murray)(tac) (sjt). (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#2

Mar 25, 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 13, 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 3/25/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Apr 01, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Apr 01, 2026

Reply - Other

#5

Apr 02, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Apr 08, 2026

NOTICE of Change of Hearing Date: The hearing on the pending petition for writ of habeas corpus set for 4/13/2026 is VACATED and is rescheduled for 4/16/2026 09:30 AM in Courtroom 4C before Judge Jinsook Ohta. Counsel may utilize the same videoconference information previously sent by the courtroom deputy. (no document attached) (smy) (Entered: 04/08/2026)

Apr 08, 2026

Notice of Change of Hearing

#7

Apr 10, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Bulmaro Colin Chaparro, a Mexican national, 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 entered the United States in 2004 and resided here ever since. Dkt. 1 P. 16. On March 9, 2026, the government took him into immigration custody at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. P. 17. On March 24, 2026, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied his motion for custody redetermination for lack of jurisdiction, consistent with the Board of Immigration Appeals decision in Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025) finding that noncitizens present in the United States without inspection or admission are subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). Id. P. 3; Dkt. 1-2. As a result, Petitioner remains detained to this day.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. 1, 2. 3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by continuing to deprive 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 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). Further, the IJ unlawfully denied Petitioner the right to seek review of his custody determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1). The absence of any individualized determination significantly risks 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. 8. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/10/2026. (mk) (Entered: 04/10/2026)

#8

Apr 10, 2026

Order

#9

Apr 10, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Apr 10, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#10

Apr 13, 2026

Notice (Other)