Nitin Vats v. Christopher LaRose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 NITIN VATS, Case No.: 25-CV-3684 JLS (KSC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et 15 (ECF No. 1) al., [16] Respondents. [17] 18 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Rigoberto Nitin Vats’s Petition for Writ of 19 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Also before the Court 20 is Respondents Christopher LaRose’s (Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center), 21 Daniel A. Brightman’s (Acting Field Office Director, San Diego Office), Todd Lyons’s 22 (Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), Sirce Owen’s (Acting 23 Director for Executive Office for Immigration Review), Kristi Noem’s (Secretary, U.S. 24 Department of Homeland Security, and Pamela Bondi’s (U.S. Attorney General) 25 (collectively, “Respondents”) Return to Habeas Petition (“Ret.,” ECF No. 3) and 26 Petitioner’s Traverse (“Traverse,” ECF No. 4). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 27 GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 28 / / / 1 BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner, an Indian national, alleges that he has been detained by the United States 3 Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division at 4 the Otay Mesa Detention Center since November 9, 2025, when he accidentally 5 approached the gate near Camp Pendleton and was arrested. Pet. ¶ 13. Petitioner fled India 6 on account of religious and political persecution and is currently seeking asylum. Id. ¶ 34 . 7 Upon arrival, Petitioner was briefly detained and released on conditional parole. Id. ¶ 9 . 8 Petitioner claims that he is detained by ICE in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (a), the 9 Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. 10 at 31–34. 11 Respondents admit only that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 12 Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 25-CV-1873-SSS-BFM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 13 WL 3289861 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2025).1 Ret at 2. Petitioner argues that he is not a 14 member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista and that he is entitled 15 to release because the government violated his due process rights by revoking his parole 16 without notice or an opportunity to be heard. Traverse at 4. 17 LEGAL STANDARD 18 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 19 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of 20 his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a). The sole judicial 21 body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the 22 court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252 ; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales, [23] 418 F.3d 1050 , 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 24 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising [26] 1 On December 18, 2025, the Bautista Court entered final judgment concluding that the July 8, 2025, DHS [27] Notice redefining who is considered an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (b)(2)(A) is 28 unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. Maldonado Bautista, No. 25-CV-1873-SSS-BFM, 1 independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention— 2 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, [3] 443 F.3d 1069 , 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, [4] 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042 , 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 5 2018) (citations omitted). 6 DISCUSSION 7 I. Due Process 8 Petitioner argues that the summary revocation of his parole without notice or a 9 hearing violates the Due Process Clause. Pet. ¶ 6. The Court agrees. 10 The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “[n]o person shall be . . . deprived of life, 11 liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. “[T]he Due 12 Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether 13 their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 14 U.S. 678 , 693 (9th Cir. 2001). “[I]t is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles 15 aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 , 16 306 (1993). The Due Process Clause generally “requires some kind of a hearing before the 17 State deprives a person of liberty or property.” Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 , 127 18 (1990). “Even individuals who face significant constraints on their liberty or over whose 19 liberty the government wields significant discretion retain a protected interest in their 20 liberty.” Pinchi v. Noem, No. 25-cv-5632-PCP, 2025 WL 2084921 , at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 21 25, 2025) (citations omitted). Although the initial decision to detain or release an 22 individual may be within the government’s discretion, “the government’s decision to 23 release an individual from custody creates ‘an implicit promise,’ upon which that 24 individual may rely, that their liberty ‘will be revoked only if [they] fail[] to live up to the 25 . . . conditions [of release].’” Id. (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972)). 26 “Thus, even when ICE has the initial discretion to detain or release a noncitizen pending 27 removal proceedings, after that individual is released from custody [he] has a protected [28] 1 liberty interest in remaining out of custody.” Pinchi, 2025 WL 2084921 , at *3 (citing 2 Romero v. Kaiser, No. 22-cv-20508, 2022 WL 1443250 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2022)). 3 Respondents suggest that because of Maldonado Bautista, Petitioner is detained 4 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (a) and is only entitled to a bond hearing—making his other 5 constitutional claims moot. See Ret. at 2. The Court disagrees. On October 13, 2023, 6 Petitioner was determined to not be a danger to the community or a flight risk and was 7 released on conditional parole. Pet. ¶ 44. Petitioner has complied with all conditions of 8 his release. Id. ¶ 12 . Petitioner has work authorization, has lived in the community without 9 issue for two years, and has applied for asylum. Id. The relief Petitioner is entitled to is 10 not limited to a bond hearing; Petitioner has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of 11 custody. See, e.g., Pinchi, 2025 WL 2084921 , at *4 (“[Petitioner’s] release from ICE 12 custody after her initial apprehension reflected a determination by the government that she 13 was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community, and [Petitioner] has a strong interest 14 in remaining at liberty unless she no longer meets those criteria.”); Noori, 2025 WL 15 2800149, at *10 (“Petitioner is not an ‘arriving’ noncitizen but one that has [been] present 16 in our country for over a year. This substantial amount of time indicates he is afforded the 17 Fifth Amendment’s guaranteed due process before removal.”); Matute v. Wofford, No. 2518 cv-1206-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2817795 , at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2025) (finding 19 petitioner had a protected liberty interest in his release). 20 As Petitioner has a protected liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires 21 procedural protections before he can be deprived of that interest. See Matthews v. Eldridge, [22] 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). To determine which procedures are constitutionally sufficient 23 to satisfy the Due Process Clause, the Court must apply the Matthews factors. See 24 Matthews, 424 U.S. at 335 . Courts must consider: (1) “the private interest that will be 25 affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest 26 through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute 27 procedural safeguards”; and (3) “the Government’s interest, including the function [28] 1 involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute 2 procedural requirement would entail.” Id. 3 The Court finds that all three factors support a finding that the Government’s 4 revocation of Petitioner’s parole without notification, reasoning, or an opportunity to be 5 heard, denied Petitioner of his due process rights. First, as discussed above, Petitioner has 6 a significant liberty interest in remaining out of custody pursuant to his conditional parole. 7 “Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of 8 physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty [the Due Process Clause] protects.” 9 Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. Petitioner has an interest in remaining with and supporting his 10 family and continuing the process of seeking asylum. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. 471 at 482 11 (“Subject to the conditions of his parole, he can be gainfully employed and is free to be 12 with family and friends and to form the other enduring attachments of normal life.”). 13 Second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest is high as Petitioner’s 14 parole was revoked without providing him a reason for revocation or giving him an 15 opportunity to be heard. Pet. ¶ 71. Since DHS’s initial determination that Petitioner should 16 be paroled because he posed no danger to the community and was not a flight risk, there is 17 no evidence that these findings have changed. See Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 18 1168, 1760 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (“Release reflects a determination by the government that the 19 noncitizen is not a danger to the community or a flight risk.”). Petitioner has no criminal 20 record, has not been arrested or otherwise in criminal trouble, has work authorization, and 21 is working towards asylum status. Pet. ¶¶ 16–17. “Once a noncitizen has been released, 22 the law prohibits federal agents from rearresting him merely because he is subject to 23 removal proceedings.” Saravia, 280 F. Supp. 3d at 1760. “Rather, the federal agents must 24 be able to present evidence of materially changed circumstances—namely, evidence that 25 the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or has become a flight risk. . . .” Id. 26 Respondents, failing to address Petitioner’s Due Process argument in their response, 27 do not point to any material circumstances that have changed that would warrant 28 reconsideration of his parole. See generally Ret. “Where, as here, ‘the petitioner has not 1 received any bond or custody hearing,’ ‘the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty is 2 high’ because neither the government nor [Petitioner] has had an opportunity to determine 3 whether there is any valid basis for [his] detention.” Pinchi, 2025 WL 2084921 , at *5 4 (quoting Singh v. Andrews, No. 25-cv-801-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 1918679 , at *7 (E.D. 5 Cal. July 11, 2025)) (cleaned up). 6 Third, the Government’s interest in detaining Petitioner without notice, reasoning, 7 and a hearing is “low.” See Pinchi, 2025 WL 2084921 , at *5; Matute, 2025 WL 2817795 , 8 at *6; Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d 963 , 970 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019) (“If the 9 government wishes to re-arrest [Petitioner] at any point, it has the power to take steps 10 toward doing so; but its interest in doing so without a hearing is low.”). Respondents fail 11 to point to any burdens on the Government if it were to have provided proper notice, 12 reasoning, and a pre-deprivation hearing. See generally Ret. 13 Therefore, because Respondents detained Petitioner by revoking his parole in 14 violation of the Due Process Clause, his detention is unlawful. See, e.g., Alegria Palma v. 15 Larose et al., No. 25-cv-1942 BJC (MMP), slip op. at 14 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2025) 16 (granting a TRO based on a procedural due process challenge to a revocation of parole 17 without a pre-deprivation hearing); Navarro Sanchez, 2025 WL 2770629 , at *5 (granting 18 a writ of habeas corpus releasing petitioner from custody to the conditions of her 19 preexisting parole on due process grounds).2 20 II. Attorney’s Fees 21 Petitioner has requested costs and attorney’s fees in this action pursuant to the Equal 22 Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 . Pet. at 35. The EAJA provides in part: [25] 2 The Court need not address Petitioner’s claim arising under the APA because the Petition can be resolved 26 on due process grounds. However, the Court notes that other courts have found violations of the APA based on similar grounds. See, e.g., Navarro Sanchez, 2025 WL 2770629 , at *4 (finding revocation of [27] petitioner’s parole arbitrary and capricious because respondents did not state any reasons for the 28 revocation); Noori, 2025 WL 2800149 , at *3 (“Petitioner’s parole was revoked without an individualized 1 A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court an [2] application for fees and other expenses which shows that the 3 party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under this subsection, and the amount sought, including an [4] itemized statement from any attorney . . . representing or 5 appearing in behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were [6] computed. The party shall also allege that the position of the 7 United States was not substantially justified. Whether or not the position of the United States was substantially justified shall be [8] determined on the basis of the record . . . which is made in the 9 civil action for which fees and other expenses are sought. [10] 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(B). 11 The Court will consider an application requesting reasonable fees and costs under 12 the EAJA that is filed within thirty days of the judgment. 13 CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for Writ 15 of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release 16 Petitioner from custody subject to the conditions of his preexisting parole. The Court 17 ORDERS, prior to any re-detention of Petitioner, that Petitioner is entitled to notice of the 18 reasons for revocation of his parole and a hearing before a neutral decision maker to 19 determine whether detention is warranted. The Government shall bear the burden of 20 establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the 21 community or a risk of flight.3 The Parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report by 22 January 12, 2025, confirming that Petitioner has been released. Lastly, Petitioner’s 23 attorney is directed to submit an attorney fee application and corresponding billing records [27] 3 This relief has been granted in similar matters. See, e.g., Matute, 2025 WL 2817795 , at *8; Pinchi, 2025 28 WL 2084921 , at *5; Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083 , 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2025); Martinez Hernandez 1 || within thirty (30) days of this Order, and Respondents are instructed to file any opposition 2 || within fourteen (14) days of Petitioner’s attorney fee application. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: December 29, 2025 . tt 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge