Manvel Zakinyan v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 MANVEL ZAKINYAN Case No.: 25-CV-3717 JLS (MMP) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center, (ECF No. 1) et al., [15] Respondents. [17] 18 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Manvel Zakinyan’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 a Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Ret.,” ECF No. 3) filed by Warden, 21 Otay Mesa Detention Center; Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Acting 22 Director, San Diego Filed Office; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S. 23 Attorney General (collectively, “Respondents”) and Petitioner’s Traverse (“Traverse,” 24 ECF No. 4). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for 25 Writ of Habeas Corpus. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner, a native and citizen of Armenia, alleges that he has been detained by the 3 United States Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement 4 division at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since December 2, 2025, when he presented 5 himself at the San Ysidro Port of Entry and applied for admission into the United States. 6 Pet. at 8. After participating in a credible fear interview and receiving a positive credible 7 fear determination, Petitioner was found to have established a credible fear of persecution 8 and torture. Id. Petitioner, through counsel, timely filed a request for custody 9 redetermination with the San Diego Immigration Court, seeking a bond hearing. Id. The 10 Immigration Judge found that the Court “lacked jurisdiction solely because DHS classified 11 Petitioner as an ‘arriving alien,’ citing regulatory authority and asserting that custody 12 jurisdiction was barred as a matter of law.” Id. at 9. Petitioner claims that he is detained 13 by ICE in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 2241 and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [14] Id. at 15–20. 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 17 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of 18 his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a). The sole judicial 19 body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the 20 court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252 ; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales, [21] 418 F.3d 1050 , 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 22 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising 23 independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention— 24 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, [25] 443 F.3d 1069 , 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, [26] 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042 , 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 27 2018) (citations omitted). 28 / / / 1 DISCUSSION 2 Respondents first argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (g). 3 Ret. at 4–5. Respondents then argue that Petitioner’s claims fail on the merits because 4 Petitioner, as an arriving alien found to have a credible fear of persecution, is subject to 5 mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 until the conclusion of his removal 6 proceedings. Id. at 5–10. 7 I. Jurisdiction 8 Section 1252(g) provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or 9 claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney 10 General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any 11 alien under this chapter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (g). Respondents argue that Petitioner’s claims 12 “necessarily arise from the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to commence 13 removal proceedings against him . . . .” Ret. at 4. The Court disagrees. 14 Section 1252(g) should be read “narrowly” as to apply “only to three discrete actions 15 that the Attorney General may take: her ‘decision or action’ to ‘commence proceedings, 16 adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.’” Ibarra-Perez v. United States, No. 24-631, [17] 2025 WL 2461663 , at *6 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2025) (quoting Reno v. American-Arab Anti18 Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 482, 487 (1999)). Section 1252(g) “does not 19 prohibit challenges to unlawful practices merely because they are in some fashion 20 connected to removal orders.” Id. at *7. Section 1252(g) does not bar due process claims. 21 Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 , 1052–53 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding that the petitioners’ 22 objective was not to review the merits of their proceeding, but rather “to enforce their 23 constitutional rights to due process in the context of those proceedings”). 24 Here, Petitioner does not challenge the decision to commence removal proceedings 25 or any act to adjudicate or execute a removal order. Rather, Petitioner is challenging the 26 agency’s misclassification of custody under § 1225(b), which deprived him of his statutory 27 right to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). Traverse at 10. Petitioner is enforcing his 28 “constitutional rights to due process in the context of the removal proceedings—not the 1 legitimacy of the removal proceedings or any removal order.” Garcia v. Noem, No. 252 CV-2180-DMS-MMP, 2025 WL 2549431 , at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025). Therefore, § 3 1252(g) does not strip the Court of jurisdiction. 4 II. Merits 5 A. Detention Under § 1225(b) 6 Respondents argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 7 § 1225(b)(2)(A) as an applicant for admission. Ret. at 5. Petitioner argues that because 8 his expedited removal proceedings were vacated, § 1225(b) “no longer provides a valid 9 basis for continued mandatory detention.” Pet. ¶ 45(a). 10 Section 1225 applies to “applicants for admission” who are “alien[s] present in the 11 United States who [have] not been admitted or who arrive[] in the United States (whether 12 or not at a designated port of arrival . . .).” 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (a)(1). Section 1125(b)(B)(i)(ii) 13 provides in part that if an asylum officer “determines . . . that an alien has a credible fear 14 of persecution . . . the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application 15 for asylum.” See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018) (Sections §§ 1225(b)(1) 16 and (b)(2) “thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings 17 have concluded.”). In Jennings, the Supreme Court noted that “nothing in the statutory 18 text imposes any limit on the length of detention” and nothing in §§ 1225(b)(1) or (b)(2) 19 “say[] anything whatsoever about bond hearings.” 583 U.S. at 297 . The Attorney General 20 may temporarily parole aliens detained under § 1225(b) “for urgent humanitarian reasons 21 or significant public benefit.” Id. at 300. Otherwise, “there are no other circumstances 22 under which aliens detained under § 1225(b) may be released.” Id. 23 Here, Petitioner “presented himself for inspection at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, 24 applied for admission, and was subsequently found to have a positive credible fear of 25 persecution and torture by an asylum officer.” Pet. ¶ 5. Petitioner has been detained since 26 he entered the United States on December 2, 2025. Id. ¶ 27. The Court concludes that 27 Petitioner is an applicant for admission lawfully detained under §1225(b). Accordingly, [28] | Court DENIES the Petition and need not reach the merits of Petitioner’s additional 2 || claims. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 5 ||Corpus (ECF No. 1). The Court need not issue a certificate of appealability in this case. 6 || See Udom vy. U.S. Immigr., Customs Enf’t, No. 11-CV-2699-IEG NLS, 2012 WL 380135 , 7 *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2012) (noting no certificate of appealability required for order 8 || denying § 2241 petition (citing Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 9 || 1997))). As this concludes the litigation in the matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL close 10 || the file. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: January 6, 2026 . tt 13 pen Janis L. Sammartino 14 United States District Judge