I. BACKGROUND

26 Petitioner, a native of Mexico, entered the United States in 2002. ECF No. 1 ¶ 16. 27 Since his entry, Petitioner alleges that he has continuously resided in North San Diego 28 1 County. Id. On August 26, 2025, Petitioner was apprehended by Immigration and Custom 2 Enforcement (“ICE”) after he parked his vehicle at a shopping center. Id. ¶ 17. He is 3 currently being detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. ¶ 13. 4 After his detention, on September 23, 2025, Petitioner alleges that he requested a 5 custody redetermination before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). Id. ¶ 19. On September 30, 6 2025, the IJ denied the request on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a 7 bond redetermination pursuant to Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 8 2025). Id. 9 Petitioner alleges in his complaint that he should not be subject to mandatory 10 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and should rather be subject to § 1226(a). Id. ¶¶ 25- 11 36. As such, his detention without a meaningful bond hearing violates § 1226. He seeks 12 either release or that the Court order a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226. 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 15 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 16 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 17 custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 18 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus 19 to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal 20 law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means 21 of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections 22 have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). Accordingly, challenges 23 to immigration-related detention are within the purview of a district court's habeas 24 jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also Demore v. Kim, 538 25 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 26 III. DISCUSSION 27 In Respondents’ return to the petition, they raise several issues: (1) Petitioner’s 28 claim and requested relief is jurisidictionally barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252; (2) alternatively, 1 if not barred, Petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies; and (3) Petitioner is 2 lawfully detained under § 1225 and it is that section, rather than § 1226, that applies to 3 his detention. ECF No. 2. 4 Respondents’ arguments with regards to jurisdiction, administrative exhaustion, and 5 applicability of § 1225 versus § 1226 are identical to those recently addressed by the 6 undersigned in Martinez Lopez v. Noem et al., No: 25-cv-2717-JES-AHG, 2025 WL 7 3030457, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025). In that decision, this Court held that the Court 8 finds that the jurisdiction stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 do not strip it of 9 jurisdiction to hear similar claims challenging detention without an adequate bond hearing, 10 and that any further administrative exhaustion requirements are waived in light of Matter 11 of Yajure Hurtado. Further, the Court, along with many others, held that it is § 1226 that 12 applies to noncitizens that have be detained when after residing in the United States for a 13 period of time. The Court adopts it reasoning as to these issues and incorporates it by 14 reference. See also Beltran et al. v. Noem et al., No. 25CV2650-LL-DEB, 2025 WL 15 3078837, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025) (holding same). 16 As applied here, there is no dispute that Petitioner was detained by ICE after having 17 already resided in the United States for many years. Therefore, it is § 1226’s discretionary 18 detention that applies to him, rather than § 1225’s mandatory discretion as Respondents 19 urge and Petitioner is entitled to a meaningful bond determination, not solely based on 20 Matter of Yajure Hurtado. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s petition on this 21 ground. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons discussed above, the Court ORDERS as follows: 24 (1) Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED; 25 (2) The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond 26 redetermination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten days of this 27 Order. At the hearing, Respondents may not deny Petitioner bond on the basis 28 that he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2); 1 (4) Respondents are ORDERED to File a Notice of Compliance within ten days 2 of providing Petitioner with a bond redetermination hearing; 3 (5) The Clerk of Court SHALL enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close 4 this case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: November 21, 2025

8 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28