Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jairon Enrique Borjas-Castillo, a Honduran national who entered the United States in 2020, came to the attention of immigration authorities in November 2025 and was placed in removal proceedings for being present without lawful status. On December 29, 2025, an Immigration Judge held a bond hearing and found that his release would endanger the community, noting a January 2025 driving-under-the-influence conviction and a 2024 arrest on felony threats and domestic violence charges. He did not appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
He has filed three habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of California. The first, filed in May 2026 with counsel, alleged arbitrarily or unreasonably prolonged detention. The court denied it on June 4, 2026, reasoning that detention beyond six months with a bond hearing is not illegal, that the dangerousness finding was not unreasonable, and that review of the Immigration Judge's decision belongs to the Board. The second, filed without counsel in June 2026, repeated the theory and was denied on July 7, 2026 as repetitive, with the added time in custody not making detention unreasonably prolonged.
The third petition, filed with counsel in September 2026, argued for the first time that his arrest was unlawful because officers detained him without an administrative warrant. He states that agents pursued him outside a convenience store, never showed a warrant, and did not explain the arrest. The Government says officers were conducting surveillance aimed at someone matching a description and address. The court did not resolve that dispute, because the Government invoked abuse of the writ.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition under the abuse of the writ doctrine, which generally forbids reconsideration of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior habeas petition. A footnote explains that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's gatekeeping rules do not cover this § 2241 petition. The Government met its burden of pleading abuse by identifying the earlier proceedings and arguing the claim could have been raised. The burden then shifted to the petitioner to show cause and prejudice, or a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
On cause, the court found the factual basis, the petitioner's own account of the arrest, was available since November 2025, unlike a prolonged-detention claim that evolves as custody continues. The legal basis was also reasonably available, because 8 U.S.C. § 1357, governing warrantless immigration arrests, has long been in force and Ninth Circuit decisions applying it date back decades. A later Central District of California decision, Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin, may bolster such a claim but is new persuasive authority, not a new legal basis. Without cause, the court did not decide prejudice.
The court also rejected the miscarriage-of-justice exception, a narrow category commonly concerning actual innocence. It recognized the exception may apply to immigration detention, for example where intervening controlling authority requires a different outcome, but the petitioner identified none. Unlawful-detention allegations plus later persuasive authority would let the exception swallow the rule. The court denied the petition, did not reach the merits of the warrantless-arrest claim, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Abuse of the writ can bar a claim in a successive § 2241 immigration habeas petition when the claim could have been raised in an earlier petition.
- The Government must plead abuse with clarity and particularity, after which the petitioner bears the burden of disproving it.
- Facts a detainee knew from the moment of arrest do not supply cause for omitting a claim from earlier petitions.
- A favorable new district court decision is persuasive authority, not a new legal basis, when the governing statute has long existed.
- The denial rested on procedure alone, so the order does not decide whether the arrest was lawful or unlawful.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order, so it carries little precedential weight and binds no other court. It does show how the Southern District of California may apply abuse of the writ to detainees who file serial petitions, and it distinguishes claims fixed at the time of arrest from dynamic claims, such as prolonged detention, whose facts change with continued custody.
Counsel should raise every available ground, including how the arrest occurred, in an initial petition. Left open are whether the arrest violated § 1357 or the Constitution, and whether a later petition resting on genuinely changed circumstances or intervening controlling authority could proceed. The order does not say the arrest was lawful or unlawful.