Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01438/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01438-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241in Habeas Corpus: INS

---

1

16-CV-1438-AJB-BLM 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELCHOR KARL T. LIMPIN,

Petitioner,

v.

MR. FIGUEROA, Warden, 

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-CV-1438-AJB-BLM

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(Doc. No. 1)

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Melchor Karl T. Limpin’s (“Petitioner”)

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter 

is fully briefed. (Doc. Nos. 3, 8.) After a thorough review of the papers and applicable law, 

the Court DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a native and citizen of the Philippines. (Doc. No. 3-1 at 2.)1 Petitioner 

adjusted to lawful permanent resident status in the United States on February 20, 1996. (Id.

at 4.) On January 24, 2015, Petitioner pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine for sale 

 

1 The Court cites to the blue CM/ECF-generated document and page numbers located at 

the top of each page.

Case 3:16-cv-01438-AJB-BLM Document 11 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

16-CV-1438-AJB-BLM 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in violation of California Health and Safety (“H&S”) Code section 11378. (Id.) He was

sentenced to 365 days in jail and three years of probation. (Id.)

On July 29, 2015, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) took Petitioner 

into custody pursuant to a warrant of arrest of alien. (Id.) At that time, Petitioner was on 

GPS with San Diego probation. (Id.) DHS initiated removal proceedings, charging 

Petitioner with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (an alien convicted of 

a controlled substance offense) and 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (an alien convicted of an 

aggravated felony). (Id. at 5–8.)

On August 20, 2015, at a Preap2 bond hearing, Immigration Judge Robert 

McSeveney (“IJ”) denied Petitioner’s request for a change in custody status, finding 

Petitioner is a danger to the public. (Doc. No. 1 at 10; Doc. No. 3-1 at 9; Doc. No. 8 at 9.)

On February 11, 2016, the IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for relief from removal and 

ordered him removed to the Philippines. (Doc. No. 3-1 at 10–28.) Petitioner’s motion to 

reconsider was denied on March 14, 2016. (Id. at 29–30.) Thereafter, on March 23, 2016, 

Petitioner was afforded a Rodriguez3 bond hearing, at which time the IJ again denied 

Petitioner’s request for a change in custody status on the basis that Petitioner is a danger to 

the community and a flight risk. (Doc. No. 1 at 11; Doc. No. 3-1 at 31, 34–37.) Petitioner 

moved for reconsideration of the IJ’s denial of bond, which was denied on April 4, 2016.

(Doc. No. 3-1 at 32–33.) Petitioner appealed the removal order to the Board of Immigration 

Appeals, and his appeal remains pending. (Doc. No. 3 at 2; see Doc. No. 1 at 2.)

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2241. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his continued detention, 

asserting that the IJ and DHS attorney, while acting under color of law, denied him due 

process by failing to order him immediately released by virtue of his membership in the 

 

2 Preap v. Johnson, 303 F.R.D. 566 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

3 Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013). Rodriguez requires that aliens 

detained for a period longer than six months be given an individualized bond hearing. 

Case 3:16-cv-01438-AJB-BLM Document 11 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

16-CV-1438-AJB-BLM 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Preap class. (Id.) Respondent filed a response, and Petitioner filed a traverse. (Doc. Nos. 

3, 8.) This order follows.

LEGAL STANDARD

United States district courts may grant writs of habeas corpus to prisoners “in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241(a), (c)(3). Pursuant to § 2241, alien detainees can properly challenge “the extent of 

the Attorney General’s authority” to detain a removable alien under the general detention 

statutes. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687–88 (2001). The REAL ID Act of 2005 

amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and vests jurisdiction over final 

removal orders with the court of appeals. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075–76 

(9th Cir. 2006). The Real ID Act does not divest the district court of jurisdiction because 

the Act was “not intended to ‘preclude habeas review over challenges to detention that are 

independent of challenges to removal orders.’” Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1211 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Here, Petitioner challenges his continued detention and not 

the validity of a final order of removal. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 to consider his petition.

It is established that the district court is precluded from reviewing the Attorney 

General’s discretionary authority. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 

F.3d 887, 891–92 (9th Cir. 2003). However, this does not deprive a court of jurisdiction to 

review claims that the Attorney General’s discretion was not exercised in accordance with 

the Constitution. Gutierrez-Chavez v. I.N.S., 298 F.3d 824, 829–30 (9th Cir. 2002). The 

Court’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing whether the denial of discretionary relief 

involved a violation of federal law or the Constitution. Id. Moreover, any challenge to an 

IJ’s discretionary determination must present a colorable, constitutional claim. MendezCastro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009). “To be colorable in this context, the 

alleged violation need not be substantial, but the claim must have some possible validity.” 

Id. (citation omitted). In this case, Petitioner alleges that his constitutional due process 

Case 3:16-cv-01438-AJB-BLM Document 11 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

16-CV-1438-AJB-BLM 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

rights were violated at his bond hearing. Therefore, the Court may review Petitioner’s 

constitutional challenges to his bond hearing.

DISCUSSION

The crux of Petitioner’s assertion is that the IJ deprived him of due process of law 

when the IJ refused to grant him bond or otherwise release him. (Doc. No. 8 at 4.) 

According to Petitioner, the district court in the Preap class action ordered that all class 

members be released on their own recognizance, under intensive supervision, or on bond. 

(Id. at 3.) However, Petitioner’s understanding of Preap is wrong. In that case, the district 

court concluded that aliens can be mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)4 only if 

they were detained immediately upon release from custody. Preap, 303 F.R.D. at 571, 579. 

If an alien was not detained immediately upon release from custody, the district court 

concluded that the alien could not be mandatorily detained under § 1226(c), but rather 

could only be detained under § 1226(a).5Id. at 579. Pursuant to that section, “the 

Government [has] discretion to release an individual on his own recognizance or on bond 

while his removal case is pending if the Government determines that release would not 

present a risk of flight or a danger to the community.” Id. at 574; see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2) 

(“the Attorney General—may release the alien on—[] bond” (emphasis added)).

Accordingly, a plain reading of Preap does not afford Petitioner the relief he seeks 

from the Court. Rather, all the relief that Preap granted class members was a bond hearing 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). It is indisputable that Petitioner received this bond hearing. That 

the IJ ultimately denied Petitioner bond on the basis of being a danger to the public is not 

reviewable by this Court. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) (“The Attorney General’s discretionary 

judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court 

 

4 This section provides for mandatory detention of aliens rendered inadmissible or 

deportable for having committed certain enumerated offenses “when the alien is 

released[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).

5 This section provides for discretionary arrest and detention “[o]n a warrant issued by the 

Attorney General,” as well as discretionary release on bond. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

Case 3:16-cv-01438-AJB-BLM Document 11 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

16-CV-1438-AJB-BLM 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding 

the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole.”).

Because Petitioner was afforded all the process he was due under Preap and § 1226(a), the 

petition is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

(Doc. No. 1.) This case is now CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01438-AJB-BLM Document 11 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5