# Noem

> District Court, E.D. California · February 12, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373437

## Case

- **Full name:** Muhammad A. v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 12, 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/11373437

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MUHAMMAD A.,1 No. 1:26-cv-00950-KES-SKO (HC)
12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO GRANT PETITION
13 v.
[10-DAY DEADLINE]
14 KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
15 Respondents.
16
17 Petitioner Muhammad A. is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of
18 habeas corpus. (Doc. 1.) On February 5, 2026, the Court issued an order directing Respondents to
19 show cause whether there were any factual or legal issues in this case that render it
20 distinguishable from previous rulings of the Court. (Doc. 5.)
21 On February 11, 2026, Respondents filed a response to the order to show cause. (Doc. 7.)
22 Respondents contend that the instant case is distinguishable because Petitioner is subject to an
23 order of removal, and therefore, detention is authorized and mandated by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2).
24 Respondents state that Petitioner’s argument that his detention is unconstitutional because §
25
1 As recommended by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial
26 Conference of the United States, the Court omits petitioner’s full name, using only his first name and last
initial, to protect sensitive personal information. See Memorandum re: Privacy Concern Regarding Social
27 Security and Immigration Opinions, Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, Judicial
Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/18-cv-l-
28 suggestion_cacm_0.pdf.
1 1225(b)(2) does not apply to him, is therefore misplaced. Respondents’ contentions lack merit.
2 On January 17, 2025, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed from the United
3 States. (Doc. 7-2.) Respondents contend that the 90-day removal period under § 1231(a) began
4 when Petitioner was ordered removed and he was taken into custody. As Respondents concede,
5 Petitioner reserved his right to appeal, the appeal is currently pending before the Board of
6 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and the BIA has stayed removal pending the appeal. (Doc. 7 at 2.)
7 Title 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B) provides:

8 The removal period begins on the latest of the following:

9 (i) The date the order of removal becomes administratively final.

10 (ii) If the removal order is judicially reviewed and if a court orders a stay of the
removal of the alien, the date of the court's final order.
11
(iii) If the alien is detained or confined (except under an immigration process), the
12 date the alien is released from detention or confinement.
13 See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i-iii) (emphasis added).
14 Here, because the order of removal is on appeal to the BIA, the order of removal is not
15 administratively final, and therefore, the removal period has not yet begun. See 8 U.S.C. §
16 1231(a)(1)(B)(i); see also Peralta Ayala v. M. Wofford, 2026 WL 249567, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan.
17 30, 2026) (where noncitizen appealed removal order and BIA stayed removal, the removal order
18 is not yet administratively final, the removal period has not begun, so § 1231(a) does not apply);
19 Jose Rojas-Lara v. United States, 2026 WL 172676, at *5 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2026) (where appeal
20 of removal order remains pending before the BIA, noncitizen not subject to a final order of
21 removal and is not detained under § 1231); Mayo v. Semaia, 2025 WL 3496774, at *4 (C.D. Cal.
22 Dec. 5, 2025) (“because the Court does not find that any of the § 1241.1 conditions are present
23 here, the Court finds that Mayo is not presently subject to a final order of removal.”). Thus,
24 Petitioner is not detained under § 1231(a), and Petitioner is correct that he is detained pursuant to
25 8 U.S.C. § 1226. See Mendoza v. Warden, No. 1:25-CV-2030 CSK, 2026 WL 310116, at *5
26 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2026) (where appeal of order of removal is pending before BIA, order of
27 removal is not administratively final under § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i), and therefore, detention authority
28 is pursuant to § 1226(a), not § 1231(a)).
1 Accordingly, the Court does not find the legal issues in this case distinguishable from the
2 previous rulings of this Court. See, e.g., Clene C.D. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01463-KES-SKO
3 (HC), 2026 WL 84302 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2026); Bilal A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01715-KES-
4 HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025); W.V.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-
5 01489-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3236521 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025). The Court will
6 recommend the petition for writ of habeas corpus be GRANTED for the reasons addressed in
7 those prior orders.
8 RECOMMENDATION
9 Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that Respondents be
10 ORDERED to release Petitioner immediately and that Respondents be ENJOINED AND
11 RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing
12 evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that Petitioner is a
13 flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally justified.
14 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge
15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the
16 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within
17 ten (10) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a party may
18 file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document should be
19 captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall not
20 exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not
21 consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any
22 exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page
23 number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in
24 excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when
25 reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The
26 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver
27 of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This
28 recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of
1 Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
2 should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4

5 Dated: February 12, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373437. Public record. Not legal advice.