Zakinyan v. Warden et al

1
25-CV-3717 JLS (MMP)
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
MANVEL ZAKINYAN
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center,
et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-CV-3717 JLS (MMP)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1)
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Manvel Zakinyan’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Also before the Court
is a Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Ret.,” ECF No. 3) filed by Warden,
Otay Mesa Detention Center; Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Acting
Director, San Diego Filed Office; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S.
Attorney General (collectively, “Respondents”) and Petitioner’s Traverse (“Traverse,”
ECF No. 4). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-03717-JLS-MMP Document 6 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

2
25-CV-3717 JLS (MMP)
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
BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Armenia, alleges that he has been detained by the
United States Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement
division at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since December 2, 2025, when he presented
himself at the San Ysidro Port of Entry and applied for admission into the United States.
Pet. at 8. After participating in a credible fear interview and receiving a positive credible
fear determination, Petitioner was found to have established a credible fear of persecution
and 	torture. 	Id. 	Petitioner, 	through 	counsel, 	timely 	filed 	a 	request 	for 	custody
redetermination with the San Diego Immigration Court, seeking a bond hearing. 	Id. The
Immigration Judge found that the Court “lacked jurisdiction solely because DHS classified
Petitioner as an ‘arriving alien,’ citing regulatory authority and asserting that custody
jurisdiction was barred as a matter of law.” 	Id. at 9. Petitioner claims that he is detained
by ICE in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 2241 and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Id. at 15–20.
LEGAL STANDARD
A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the
legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of
his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial
body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the
court of appeals. 	See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales,
418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat.
231, § 106(a)). 	However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising
independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention—
federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. 	Nadarajah v. Gonzales,
443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez,
138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal.
2018) (citations omitted).
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-03717-JLS-MMP Document 6 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

3
25-CV-3717 JLS (MMP)
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
DISCUSSION
Respondents first argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
Ret. at 4–5. 	Respondents then argue that Petitioner’s claims fail on the merits because
Petitioner, as an arriving alien found to have a credible fear of persecution, is subject to
mandatory 	detention 	under 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1225 	until 	the 	conclusion 	of 	his 	removal
proceedings. Id. at 5–10.
I. 	Jurisdiction
Section 1252(g) provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or
claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney
General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any
alien under this chapter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Respondents argue that Petitioner’s claims
“necessarily arise from the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to commence
removal proceedings against him . . . .” Ret. at 4. The Court disagrees.
Section 1252(g) should be read “narrowly” as to apply “only to three discrete actions
that the Attorney General may take: her ‘decision or action’ to ‘commence proceedings,
adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.’” Ibarra-Perez v. United States, No. 24-631,
2025 WL 2461663, at *6 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2025) (quoting Reno v. American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 482, 487 (1999)). 	Section 1252(g) “does not
prohibit challenges to unlawful practices merely because they are in some fashion
connected to removal orders.” Id. at *7. Section 1252(g) does not bar due process claims.
Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1052–53 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding that the petitioners’
objective was not to review the merits of their proceeding, but rather “to enforce their
constitutional rights to due process in the context of those proceedings”).
Here, Petitioner does not challenge the decision to commence removal proceedings
or any act to adjudicate or execute a removal order. Rather, Petitioner is challenging the
agency’s misclassification of custody under § 1225(b), which deprived him of his statutory
right to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). 	Traverse at 10. 	Petitioner is enforcing his
“constitutional rights to due process in the context of the removal proceedings—not the
Case 3:25-cv-03717-JLS-MMP Document 6 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

4
25-CV-3717 JLS (MMP)
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
legitimacy of the removal proceedings or any removal order.” 	Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-
CV-2180-DMS-MMP, 2025 WL 2549431, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025). 	Therefore, §
1252(g) does not strip the Court of jurisdiction.
II. 	Merits
A. Detention Under § 1225(b)
Respondents 	argue 	that 	Petitioner 	is 	subject 	to 	mandatory 	detention 	under
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) as an applicant for admission. 	Ret. at 5. 	Petitioner argues that because
his expedited removal proceedings were vacated, § 1225(b) “no longer provides a valid
basis for continued mandatory detention.” Pet. ¶ 45(a).
Section 1225 applies to “applicants for admission” who are “alien[s] present in the
United States who [have] not been admitted or who arrive[] in the United States (whether
or not at a designated port of arrival . . .).” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1). Section 1125(b)(B)(i)(ii)
provides in part that if an asylum officer “determines . . . that an alien has a credible fear
of persecution . . . the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application
for asylum.” See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018) (Sections §§ 1225(b)(1)
and (b)(2) “thus mandate detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings
have concluded.”). 	In Jennings, the Supreme Court noted that “nothing in the statutory
text imposes any limit on the length of detention” and nothing in §§ 1225(b)(1) or (b)(2)
“say[] anything whatsoever about bond hearings.” 583 U.S. at 297. The Attorney General
may temporarily parole aliens detained under § 1225(b) “for urgent humanitarian reasons
or significant public benefit.” 	Id. at 300. 	Otherwise, “there are no other circumstances
under which aliens detained under § 1225(b) may be released.” Id.
Here, Petitioner “presented himself for inspection at the San Ysidro Port of Entry,
applied for admission, and was subsequently found to have a positive credible fear of
persecution and torture by an asylum officer.” Pet. ¶ 5. Petitioner has been detained since
he entered the United States on December 2, 2025. 	Id. 	¶ 27. 	The Court concludes that
Petitioner is an applicant for admission lawfully detained under §1225(b). 	Accordingly,
Case 3:25-cv-03717-JLS-MMP Document 6 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

5
25-CV-3717 JLS (MMP)
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
the Court DENIES the Petition and need not reach the merits of Petitioner’s additional
claims.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (ECF No. 1). The Court need not issue a certificate of appealability in this case.
See Udom v. U.S. Immigr., Customs Enf’t, No. 11-CV-2699-IEG NLS, 2012 WL 380135,
at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2012) (noting no certificate of appealability required for order
denying § 2241 petition (citing Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir.
1997))). As this concludes the litigation in the matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL close
the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03717-JLS-MMP Document 6 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5