Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
25-cv-3593-JES-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
ALVARO MATIAS GROSSO,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
Respondent.
Case No.: 25-cv-3593-JES-BLM
ORDER:
(1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS;
(2) DENYING MOTION TO STAY
AS MOOT; and
(3) DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL AS MOOT
[ECF Nos. 1-3]
Before the Court is Petitioner Alvaro Matias Grosso’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner concurrently
filed a motion to stay. ECF No. 2. Petitioner also subsequently filed a motion to appoint
counsel. ECF No. 3. After due consideration and for the reasons below, the Court declines
to issue an order to show cause and DENIES the petition without prejudice.
Petitioner is a native of Italy and is currently being detained at Otay Mesa Detention
Center. ECF No. 1 at 1. He is currently in removal proceedings. Id. at 4. He alleges that he
Case 3:25-cv-03593-JES-BJW Document 4 Filed 01/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
25-cv-3593-JES-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
is a victim of human trafficking and appears to have a pending T-Visa case in front of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Id. at 5-6. In his petition, he seeks (1)
immediate release; (2) dismissal of his immigration court charges “due to [his] situation as
[a] victim[]”; (3) expedited processing of his USCIS case; and (4) an opportunity to contest
his case with USCIS. Id. at 7.
Upon consideration of a habeas petition under § 2241, the court shall “award the writ
or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,
unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. “Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations
in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”
Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Hendricks v.
Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)).
Here, Petitioner is not requesting any relief that is cognizable on habeas relief. On
habeas, district courts may not review discretionary decisions made by immigration
authorities, and may only review immigration-related detentions to determine if they
comport with the requirements of the Constitution. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688,
(2001). Further, jurisdiction to review any challenges to underlying immigration orders,
including removal orders, does not rest with the district court, but with appellate courts.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Most of Petitioner’s relief asks the Court to interfere with his
underlying and pending immigration proceedings, which the Court cannot do. While
Petitioner does make a request for immediate release, he identifies no grounds,
constitutional or otherwise, as to why he is entitled to this relief.
//
//
//
//
//
//
Case 3:25-cv-03593-JES-BJW Document 4 Filed 01/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
25-cv-3593-JES-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
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice,
and DENIES the motion to stay and motion for appointment of counsel as moot. The Clerk
is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 12, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03593-JES-BJW Document 4 Filed 01/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3