The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 Case No.: 26cv1828 DMS SBC
AHMET ARDIC,
12 O R D E R G R A N T I N G P E T I TION
13 Petitioner,
v.
14
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior
15
Warde, Otay Mesa Detention Center
16
Respondent.
17
18
19 This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
20 Respondent filed a Return to the Petition, and Petitioner filed a Reply. For the following
21 reasons, the Petition is granted.
22 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Turkey. (Pet., Ex. 1.) On August 29, 2025, he
23 entered the United States without inspection and was arrested by Border Patrol officials.
24 (Id.) He was determined to be inadmissible, placed in expedited removal proceedings, and
25 taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. (Id.) Petitioner was
26 referred for a credible fear interview with an asylum officer, and after receiving a positive
27 finding, was issued a Notice to Appear, which initiated full removal proceedings. (Id.;
28 Return at 2.) On March 11, 2026, Petitioner appeared before an immigration judge for a
1 custody redetermination hearing. Petitioner’s request was denied based on Matter of
2 Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I & N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).1 (Pet., Ex. 1.) According to the Return,
3 Petitioner was scheduled for a master hearing before an immigration judge on April 22,
4 2026. It is unclear whether that hearing went forward as scheduled or was continued. In
5 either case, as of May 7, 2026, Petitioner was still detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center.
6 On March 23, 2026, Petitioner filed the present case alleging his continued detention
7 without a bond hearing violates his due process rights. Respondents argue Petitioner’s
8 detention has not been unconstitutionally prolonged.
9 In Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F.Supp.3d 1099, 1106 (W.D. Wash. 2019), the court
10 set out
11 a framework for analyzing a due process challenge to prolonged detention, a
six factor balancing test used by some district courts, that considers: (1) the
12
total length of detention to date; (2) the likely duration of future detention; (3)
13 conditions of detention; (4) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the
detainee; (5) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the government;
14
and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final order
15 of removal.
16 Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F.Supp.3d 1090, 1093-94 (S.D. Cal. 2025). This Court has applied
17 those factors to similar claims, see, e.g., De la Torre Duran v. Doe, Case No. 25cv3230
18 DMS (DDL); Ogandzhanian v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, Case No.
19 26cv0093 DMS MSB, ECF No. 6, and does so again here.
20 Starting with the first factor, Petitioner has been detained since August 29, 2025, or
21 for nearly nine months. The current status of Petitioner’s immigration proceedings is
22 unclear, and thus the length of Petitioner’s future detention is also unclear. On the third
23 factor, courts in this District and elsewhere have found the conditions of confinement at
24
25
26 1 In Yajure-Hurtado, the Board of Immigration Appeals reasoned that any individual who entered the
United States without admission is an “applicant for admission” (meaning, an “alien present in the United
27 States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port
of arrival . . .)”), and must, therefore, be detained during removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
28
1 Mesa Detention Center, where Petitioner is currently housed, “are not dissimilar to
2 || criminal confinement[.|” Gao v. LaRose, 805 F.Supp.3d 1106, 1111 (S.D. Cal. 2025). See
3 || also Zhakuov v. Noem, No. 3:26-cv-00288-RBM-DDL, 2026 WL 517981, at *3 (S.D. Cal.
4 || Feb. 25, 2026) (quoting Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F.Supp.3d 768, 773 (S.D. Cal. 2020)) (stating
5 ||multiple courts have found detention at Otay Mesa “’is indistinguishable from penal
6 ||confinement’”). On the fourth and fifth factors, Respondents argue any delays in
7 || Petitioner’s immigration proceedings were the result of Petitioner’s requests to continue
8 were not caused by Respondents, but Respondents failed to produce any evidence to
9 ||support those assertions. Absent any evidence, these factors are neutral. And the same
10 || goes for the sixth factor, as it is unclear what the outcome of Petitioner’s immigration
11 || proceedings will be.
12 Because the balance of factors weigh in favor of Petitioner, the Court finds
13 || Petitioner’s detention has become unconstitutionally prolonged and violates due process.
14 || Accordingly, Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for
15 || Petitioner before an immigration court within fourteen (14) days of this Order unless
16 || Petitioner requests a continuance. At that bond hearing, the Government shall have the
17 ||burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the
18 |}community or a risk of flight if released on bond. Respondents shall file a Joint Status
19 || Report within twenty-one (21) days of this Order’s entry confirming Petitioner received a
20 bond hearing and setting out the results thereof.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 ||Dated: May 22, 2026
23 nm Sab
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28