Warden

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 KHOTAMJON ABDUNABI UGLI Case No. 1:26-cv-02946-JLT-SAB

GANJANOV,

12 A-Number: 245-048-091

Petitioner,

13 ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR

v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING

14 THE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

WARDEN, et al., RESTRAINING ORDER AS MOOT;

15 ORDERING PETITIONER’S IMMEDIATE

Respondents. RELEASE; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK

16 OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE

17 (Docs. 1, 2.)

18

19 I. INTRODUCTION

20 Before the Court is Khotamjon Abdunabi Ugli Ganjanov’s request for a temporary

21 restraining order (Doc. 2), filed in conjunction with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus

22 brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing detention. (Doc. 1.) The government

23 filed a response to the TRO and the underlying petition, asserting only that the petitioner is

24 subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), a legal position that this Court has

25 rejected repeatedly. (See Doc. 6.) Thus, the Court GRANTS the petition for writ of habeas

26 corpus.1

27

28

1 When the Court set a briefing schedule on the motion for TRO, it ordered the parties to state their

1 II. LEGAL STANDARD

2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has the authority to determine a petition for writ of

3 habeas corpus in which the petitioner asserts he is being held in custody “in violation of the

4 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack

5 by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and that the traditional function of the

6 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).

7 Petitioner seeks his immediate release from custody, which he contends violates the Fifth

8 Amendment Due Process Clause under the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Thus, he

9 properly invokes the Court’s habeas jurisdiction.

10 The INA limits judicial review in many instances. Though 8 U.S.C § 1252(g) precludes

11 this Court from exercising jurisdiction over the executive’s decision to “commence proceedings,

12 adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien,” there is no removal order at issue

13 here and the central issue is Petitioner’s continued detention. Thus, this Court has the authority

14 to review Petitioner’s habeas petition. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 294 (2018)

15 (holding that § 1252(g) precludes judicial review only as to the three areas specifically outlined

16 in the subsection); Reno v. American–Arab Anti–Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482

17 (1999).

18 III. BACKGROUND

19 Petitioner is an asylum seeker from Uzbekistan who entered the United States on or

20 about July 16, 2023. (Doc. 2 at 3.) The record suggests that Petitioner was encountered at the

21 border and released pending an outcome on his asylum application.2 Petitioner was ordered

22

further briefing, whether the parties sought a hearing on the motion, and whether the parties sought

23 additional briefing on the merits of the habeas petition. (Doc. 5.) Respondents did not request a hearing or

further briefing and instead request this Court “deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus,” (Doc. 6 at 2),

24 thereby requesting a decision on the underlying merits. Considering this and given that Respondents had

notice and opportunity to respond, (see Doc. 6), the Court decides this case on the underlying habeas

25 petition.

26 2 Despite this Court ordering Respondents to “provide . . . copies of referenced/relevant portions of

Petitioner’s A-File and other supporting documents” (Doc. 5), Respondents only indicate “Petitioner’s

27

prior release in the discretion of DHS does not have the effect of having converted [P]etitioner’s presence

28 in the United States into an ‘admission.’” (Doc. 6 at 2.) This suggests that Petitioner was encountered at

1 removed on November 20, 2024, and has a current appeal before the Board of Immigration

2 Appeals, which has been pending since December 11, 2024.3 (See id.) On March 18, 2026,

3 Petitioner was arrested by ICE in Philadelphia and transferred to California City Immigration

4 Processing Center in California, where he is currently detained. (Id.) Petitioner has no criminal

5 history, (Doc. 2 at 3), nor is there any indication in the record that Petitioner now poses a flight

6 risk or danger to the community. (Id. at 2–3; see also Doc. 1 at 1–2, 5; Doc. 6.)

7 IV. DISCUSSION

8 The government filed an opposition to the petition and motion for temporary restraining

9 order, arguing that Petitioner’s detention is “mandatory” under expedited removal procedures set

10 forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (See Doc. 6.) Respondents do not argue that the non-final order of

11 removal requires Petitioner’s ongoing detention. Likewise, they offer little to rebut Petitioner’s

12 due process claim and do not distinguish this case from the numerous cases issued by the

13 undersigned, finding this legal position to be incorrect. J.S.H.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-

14 01309-JLT-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025); Ortiz Donis v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-01228-

15 JLT-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 32879514 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025); M.R.R. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-CV-

16 01517-JLT (HC), 2025 WL 3265446 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025); Espinoza v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-

17 CV-01101 JLT SKO, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025); Aguilera v. Albarran, No.

18 1:25-CV-01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025); Garcia v. Chestnut, No.

19 1:25-CV-01907-JLT-CDB, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025); Carlos v. Chestnut,

20 No. 1:26-CV-00007-JLT-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 145889 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2026).

21 Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner’s re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing

22 violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. For the foregoing reasons, the Court

23 ORDERS:

24 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1), is GRANTED for the reasons

25

3 Upon entering Petitioner’s A-Number into EOIR’s website, the automated case information indicates

26

that the immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed on November 20, 2024, and that the appeal to the

BIA was received on December 11, 2024, which is still currently pending. EOIR, Automated Case

27

Information, https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseinformation (last visited April 23, 2026). Petitioner also

28 indicates that he has “a pending appeal before the BIA from a decision by the Philadelphia Immigration

ee I III IE II

1 | stated in the orders cited above. Petitioner SHALL be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY.

2 2. The motion for temporary restraining order, (Doc. 2), is DENIED as MOOT.

3 3. Respondents are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner

4 | unless the government provides notice to Petitioner a minimum of seven days in advance and

5 | holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and applicable

6 | regulations, at which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered, and where the

7 | government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or

8 | danger to the community, such that physical custody is legally justified*;

9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the California City Immigration

10 | Processing Center in California with a copy of this Order.

11 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated: _ April 24, 2026

TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4 Tf legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without notice in advance, a post-deprivation hearing

26 consistent with the requirements set forth here SHALL be provided within seven days of the arrest.

17 Alternatively, if Petitioner becomes subject to an administratively and/or judicially final order of removal,

see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B), and Petitioner receives notice of such order, Respondents may detain

28 Petitioner for the sole and limited purpose of executing removal. In this event, Respondent’s SHALL

provide a bond hearing in the timeframe required by law.