The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JUNYA ZHANG, Case No.: 3:26-cv-3331-CAB-MSB
12 Petitioner,
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
13 v. FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
14 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
17
Petitioner Junya Zhang, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a
18
second petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1
19
(“Petition”).] Petitioner was detained on November 9, 2025.
20
In response to the first habeas petition, this Court ordered Respondents to provide
21
Petitioner a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. [See Case No. 3:26-cv-468-CAB-MSB.]
22
Petitioner received a bond hearing on February 12, 2026; the immigration judge (“IJ”)
23
denied bond. [Doc. No. 5.] Petitioner’s removal proceedings remain ongoing. Petitioner
24
received a merits hearing on June 8, 2026; the IJ denied all relief and ordered Petitioner
25
removed to China. [Doc. No. 5 at 2.] Petitioner has until July 8, 2026 to appeal the IJ’s
26
removal decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). [Id.]
27
28
1 The Court DISMISSES the Petition because pursuing habeas review of an IJ’s
2 adverse bond determination before appealing to the BIA is an improper shortcut. Leonardo
3 || v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011). Only once Petitioner has exhausted his
4 ||administrative remedies by appealing to and receiving a decision from the BIA may he
5 || seek relief of that bond determination via a habeas petition to this Court. Jd.
6 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
7 It is SO ORDERED.
8
9 Dated: July 2, 2026 é
10 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
11 United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28