Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 GHASEMIKACHLAMI ALIREZA (A No. Case No. 1:26-cv-02586-JLT-SKO

220-562-522),

12 ORDER WITHDRAWING THE REFERENCE

Petitioner, OF THIS MATTER TO THE MAGISTRATE

13 JUDGE; GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT

v. OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND DIRECTING

14 RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE A

WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA CITY SUBSTANTIVE BOND HEARING

15 DETENTION CENTER, et al.,

(Doc. 1.)

16 Respondents.

17

18 Ghasemikachlami Alireza is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a pending

19 habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) This matter was initially referred to a

20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. In the

21 interest of justice and to promote judicial and party efficiency, the undersigned hereby withdraws

22 that reference, and for the reasons set forth below, GRANTS the Petition.

23 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

24 Petitioner is an asylum seeker from Iran who entered the United States near Otay Mesa,

25 Arizona, on or about September 15, 2021, without admission or parole by an immigration officer.

26 (Doc. 8-1 at 2.) On May 29, 2025, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed from United

27 States in Van Nuys, California. (Id.) On June 16, 2025, Petitioner filed an appeal with Board of

28 Immigration, and the appeal is currently pending. (Id.) On June 29, 2025, Petitioner was arrested

1 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and is currently detained at the California City

2 Detention Facility in California City, California. (Id.) On April 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition

3 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that his due process rights

4 have been violated. (Doc. 1.) On March 31, 2026, Respondents filed a response to the Petition on

5 the grounds that Petitioner’s detention is “mandatory” under expedited removal procedures set

6 forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (Doc. 8 at 1.)

7 II. LEGAL STANDARD

8 The Constitution guarantees that the writ of habeas corpus is “available to every

9 individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)

10 (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). Section 2241 of Title 28 confers the federal courts with the

11 power to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or

12 laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes challenges by non-citizens

13 in immigration-related matters. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see also A.A. R.

14 P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025).

15 III. DISCUSSION

16 Petitioner claims that his ongoing detention without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing

17 before a neutral decisionmaker violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

18 Amendment. (Doc. 1 at 6.) To the extent that Respondents substantively address Petitioner’s due

19 process argument, they assert that Petitioner is an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory

20 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) of the INA and therefore categorically ineligible for a

21 bond hearing. (Doc. 8 at 1-2.) This Court has previously addressed similar due process arguments

22 made by individuals who entered the United States without permission and have resided here for

23 many years without interacting with the immigration system and found that such individuals are

24 not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). See R.P.V., v. Minga Wofford, et al., No.

25 1:26-CV-01010 JLT EPG (HC), 2026 WL 494748, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026); Velasco v.

26 Chestnut, No. 1:26-CV-01200 JLT SKO (HC), 2026 WL 542242 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026);

27 Elder Lopez Lopez, v. Christopher Chestnut, et al., No. 1:26-CV-01455-JLT-EPG, 2026 WL

28 640887 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026).

1 Furthermore, courts nationwide, including this one, have rejected Respondents’ new legal

2 position and found the DHS policy unlawful. See e.g., Espinoza v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-CV-01101

3 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025); Ortiz Donis v. Chestnut, 1:25-CV-01228-

4 JLT, 2025 WL 2879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); M.R.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01517-JLT-

5 SKO, 2025 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025); Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-CV-01619

6 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025); J.E.H.G. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-

7 01673-JLT-SKO, 2025 WL 3523108 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-

8 01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut, No. 1:26-

9 CV-00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026).

10 Respondents offer little to rebut Petitioner’s due process claim and do not provide any

11 justification for detaining Petitioner. Therefore, for the reasons stated in this Court’s prior orders,

12 the Court finds that Petitioner’s re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Due

13 Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, though it finds that a bond hearing is the correct

14 outcome here.

15 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

16 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.

17 2. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioners with a bond hearing in

18 accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 14 days of the date of this Order, in which the parties

19 will be allowed to present evidence and argument about whether Petitioners are a danger to the

20 community and present a flight risk if not detained. If Respondents do not provide Petitioners

21 with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) as required herein, Petitioner must be immediately

22 released from detention. If Respondents fail to provide a timely bond hearing in accordance with

23 this order, Respondents are ordered to immediately release Petitioner.

24 3. Prior to the bond hearing, the Petitioner and his counsel SHALL receive

25 meaningful notice of the scheduled hearing and both SHALL be entitled to appear at the hearing.

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

] 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and enter judgment for Petitioner.

2

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

41 Dated: _ April 16, 2026 Charis [Tourn

TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

6

7

8

9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28