# Zhumagulov

> District Court, S.D. California · April 13, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369347

## Case

- **Full name:** Akylbek Zhumagulov v. Jeremy Casey, Warden
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** April 13, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369347

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 AKYLBEK ZHUMAGULOV, Case No.: 3:26-cv-01609-RBM-SBC

11 Petitioner,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
12 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
13 JEREMY CASEY, Warden,

14 Respondent. [Doc. 5]

15
16
17
18 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Akylbek Zhumagulov’s (“Petitioner”)
19 Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Amended Petition”) pursuant to 28
20 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 5.) For the reasons set forth below, the Amended Petition is
21 GRANTED IN PART.
22 I. BACKGROUND
23 A. Factual Background
24 Petitioner, a native of Kyrgyzstan, entered the United States seeking asylum on
25 September 3, 2024. (Doc. 5 at 2; Doc. 5-1, Declaration of Akylbek Zhumagulov
26 [“Zhumagulov Decl.”] ¶ 1.) Petitioner was detained and transferred to the Imperial
27 Detention Center, where he has remained ever since. (Doc. 5-1 [Zhumagulov Decl.] ¶ 2.)
28 On December 9, 2025, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s asylum claim. (Id.
1 ¶ 3.) Petitioner then filed an appeal of the immigration judge’s denial with the Board of
2 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on January 5, 2026. (Doc. 5 at 2.)
3 B. Procedural Background
4 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a Petition for Writ of
5 Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) On March 16, 2026, the Court issued
6 an order: (1) appointing Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. as counsel; and (2) setting a
7 briefing schedule which allowed Petitioner to file an amended petition. (Doc. 3 at 2–3.)
8 On March 25, 2026, Petitioner, by and through counsel, filed the Amended Petition. (Doc.
9 5.)1 Respondents filed a Return to the Petition and Notice of Non-Opposition (“Response”)
10 on April 1, 2026. (Doc. 7.) Petitioner filed a Traverse on April 8, 2026. (Doc. 9.)
11 II. LEGAL STANDARD
12 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
13 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2).
14 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
15 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
16 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may
17 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
18 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the
19 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
20 treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3).
21 III. DISCUSSION
22 Petitioner claims he has been detained since September 3, 2024, without a bond
23 hearing and in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 5 at 2–9.)
24
25
26
1 A petitioner may amend his habeas petition once as a matter of course within 21 days
27 after serving it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A); In re Morris, 363 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.
2004) (“Rule 15(a) applies to habeas corpus actions with the same force that it applies to
28
1 Respondents “acknowledge[ ] that courts in this District have repeatedly inferred a
2 constitutional right against prolonged mandatory detention,” and “concede[ ] that this
3 Court should order that Petitioner receive a bond hearing, where the government would
4 bear the burden of proof of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner
5 poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.” (Doc. 7 at 1–2.)
6 The Court has granted petitions filed by similarly situated petitioners and “join[ed]
7 the majority of courts across the country in concluding that an unreasonably prolonged
8 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized bond hearing violates due
9 process.” Khadka v. Otay Mesa Det. Ctr., No. 3:26-CV-00475-RBM-MMP, 2026 WL
10 800177, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2026); see Malyshko v. Warden, Otay Mesa Det. Ctr.,
11 Case No.: 3:26-cv-00069-RBM-SBC, 2026 WL 252367, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2026)
12 (quoting Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772 (S.D. Cal. 2020)); Xie v. LaRose, Case
13 No.: 3:26-cv-00529-RBM-DDL, 2026 WL 549909, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2026)
14 (quoting the same); Zhakuov v. Noem, Case No. 3:26-cv-00288-RBM-DDL, 2026 WL
15 517981, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2026) (same); Hussain v. LaRose, Case No.: 3:26-cv-
16 00194-RBM-MSB, 2026 WL 206715, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026) (same). In Khadka,
17 the Court applied the test set forth in Kydyrali and found most factors weighed in favor of
18 finding that a petitioner’s 15 month detention under § 1225(b) had become unreasonably
19 prolonged. 2026 WL 800177, at *3–4 (citing Kydyrali, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 773); see
20 Sibomana v. LaRose, Case No.: 3:22-cv-933-LL-NLS, 2023 WL 3028093, at *4 (S.D. Cal.
21 Apr. 20, 2023) (“In general, as detention continues past a year, courts become extremely
22 wary of permitting continued custody absent a bond hearing.”) (citation omitted).
23 Petitioner in this case has been detained for over 18 months since his initial entry
24 into the United States, more than the petitioner in Khadka. Petitioner claims “[t]here were
25 delays in [his] asylum case because it was difficult to find an interpreter” as well as “several
26 continuances . . . because the immigration judges kept changing.” (Doc. 5-1 [Zhumagulov
27 Decl.] ¶ 4.) Such a delay “is attributable to the Government, not [P]etitioner.” Banda, 385
28 F. Supp. 3d at 1120; see Malyshko, 2026 WL 252367, at *5 (finding a delay caused by
1 immigration judge assignments “is attributable to the Government, not [the petitioners].”)
2 (quoting Banda, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1120). He also claims that “[o]nce the briefs are filed,
3 it will likely take several more months for his appeal to be decided . . [and that he] intends
4 to continue his appeal should the BIA deny [it.]” (Doc. 5 at 8.) “Although Petitioner[ ]
5 chose ‘to appeal the denial of asylum, as is [his] right, there is no indication that [he is]
6 responsible for undue delay in the proceedings.’” Malyshko, 2026 WL 252367, at *5
7 (quoting Gao v. LaRose, 805 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1111 (S.D. Cal. 2025)).
8 The Court therefore adopts its reasoning in Khadka and applies it here. For those
9 same reasons, the Court finds that “Petitioner’s detention under § 1225(b) has become
10 unreasonably prolonged and due process therefore requires that he be provided with a bond
11 hearing.” Khadka, 2026 WL 800177, at *5. While Petitioner seeks his immediate release,
12 the Court finds it appropriate to hold a bond hearing to determine the conditions of his
13 potential release. The Court therefore finds that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing and
14 GRANTS the Amended Petition on this ground.
15 Petitioner argues that the Court should order his immediate release because an
16 immigration judge will not be a neutral decisionmaker. (Doc. 5 at 9–15.) The Court
17 “declines to address the issues raised by Petitioner regarding the neutrality of immigration
18 courts generally.” Sandesh v. LaRose, Case No.: 26-cv-0846-JES-DDL, 2026 WL 622690,
19 at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026). “It is axiomatic that the IJ must apply the proper legal
20 standard to effectuate this Court’s order for a bond hearing.” Id. Indeed, “[d]istrict courts
21 are better positioned to review the implementation of their orders in cases such as this after
22 the bond hearing has occurred, so that the complete record in the case may be fairly
23 evaluated.” Id. (citing Judulang v. Chertoff, 562 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1126 (S.D. Cal. 2008)).
24 IV. CONCLUSION
25 For the foregoing reasons, the Amended Petition (Doc. 5) is GRANTED IN PART.
26 To the extent that Petitioner requests to be released from custody, the Petition is DENIED.
27 Accordingly, the Court further ORDERS as follows:
28 1. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order to
2 determine whether his continued detention is warranted.
3 2. At the bond hearing, Respondents SHALL bear the burden of establishing by clear
4 and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk
5 of flight.
6 3. Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C.
7 § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention.
8 4. If the bond hearing is not conducted within ten days of the entry of this Order,
9 Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody until it is determined that his
10 detention is warranted under § 1226(a).
11 5. Respondents SHALL FILE a status report within 5 days of providing Petitioner
12 with a bond hearing indicating whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing,
13 and the outcome of that bond hearing.
14 6. Respondents SHALL make a complete record of the bond hearing available to
15 Petitioner and his counsel.
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 || DATE: April 13, 2026
Rt Baril Morgyy
19 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
26 This relief has been granted in similar matters. See Sadegi v. LaRose, 809 F. Supp. 3d
27 || 1090, 1095 (S.D. Cal. 2025); Doe v. Becerra, 787 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1089 (E.D. Cal. 2025);
Abdul Kadir v. Larose, Case No.: 25cv1045-LL-MMP, 2025 WL 2932654, at *6 (S.D. Cal.
Oct. 15, 2025).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369347. Public record. Not legal advice.