Summary
The court finds that Angel Liliguishuzca-Chuqi's habeas petition challenging immigration detention presents a sufficiently cognizable and potentially meritorious claim to warrant a response. The petition argues that the government improperly classified the petitioner as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 rather than discretionary detention under § 1226(a), which would permit a bond hearing. The court orders the respondent to answer and respond to the motion for injunctive relief by January 7, 2026, sets a reply deadline of January 12, 2026, and schedules oral argument for January 14, 2026.
Holdings
- The petition presented a challenge with sufficient potential merit to warrant a response and was not subject to summary dismissal at the initial screening stage.
Questions Presented
- Whether the petition sufficiently alleged a cognizable challenge to the statutory basis for petitioner's immigration detention to warrant a response.
- Whether the court should summarily dismiss the petition at the initial screening stage.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024)(followed)
- Barco Mercado v. Francis, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025)(cited as persuasive authority)
- Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025)(cited as persuasive authority)
- Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 2:25-cv-01542-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025)(cited as persuasive authority)
- Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2025)(cited as persuasive authority)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.