{"id":364,"date":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=364"},"modified":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","slug":"grosso-ice-2241-habeas-non-cognizable-immigration-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=364","title":{"rendered":"Grosso v. ICE \u2014 S.D. Cal. Denies Habeas Petition Seeking Dismissal of Removal Proceedings and Expedited T-Visa Processing"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Grosso v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-12<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-03593<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Section 2241 habeas, scope of district court jurisdiction over immigration proceedings, T-Visa, 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1252(a)(5)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Alvaro Matias Grosso is an Italian national detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center while his removal proceedings move forward. He alleges that he is a victim of human trafficking and has a pending T-Visa application \u2014 a form of immigration relief Congress created for victims of severe forms of human trafficking \u2014 pending before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).<\/p>\n

Acting on his own (without counsel), Grosso filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2241 seeking four kinds of relief: (1) immediate release from detention; (2) dismissal of the immigration charges against him “due to [his] situation as [a] victim”; (3) expedited processing of his T-Visa case at USCIS; and (4) an opportunity to contest his case directly with USCIS. He also filed a motion to stay his case and a motion to appoint counsel.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied the petition without prejudice and denied the motions to stay and to appoint counsel as moot.<\/p>\n

Federal district courts have very limited authority over immigration matters. Under the Supreme Court’s Zadvydas v. Davis<\/em> decision, district courts generally cannot review discretionary decisions made by immigration authorities through habeas; they can review only whether immigration-related detention complies with the Constitution. And under 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1252(a)(5), challenges to underlying immigration removal orders must be brought in the federal courts of appeals on a petition for review, not in district court.<\/p>\n

Applying those rules to Grosso’s specific requests, the court explained that most of his relief asked for interference with his pending immigration proceedings \u2014 dismissal of the removal charges and expedited USCIS adjudication of his T-Visa \u2014 which the district court has no power to provide. He also asked for immediate release, which is the kind of relief a habeas court can sometimes grant; but he identified no constitutional ground supporting that release. He did not, for example, argue that his detention violated Zadvydas<\/em>‘s six-month presumptive limit, that his procedural due process rights had been violated, or that any other identifiable constitutional rule applied to his situation. Without a cognizable constitutional theory, even the release request failed.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n