# Mullin

> District Court, E.D. California · May 22, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11383911

## Case

- **Full name:** Syed Hossein Keivani v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** May 22, 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/11383911

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SYED HOSSEIN KEIVANI, No. 1:26-cv-3292-DC-DMC-HC
12 Petitioner,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al.,
15 Respondents.
16
17 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding with retained counsel, filed a
18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF No. 1. Respondents
19 filed an answer, ECF No. 6, and Petitioner filed a traverse/reply, ECF No. 8.
20
21 I. BACKGROUND
22 According to Petitioner, he is a citizen of Iran who entered the United States on
23 April 15, 2023, and upon entering the United States, “he requested asylum and was subsequently
24 placed in ICE custody.” ECF No. 1, pg. 5. On September 18, 2023, Petitioner was ordered
25 removed, and the order of removal became final January 17, 2024, when the Board of
26 Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. See ECF No. 6, pg. 2. Petitioner was then
27
released on an order of supervision,1 documentation of which is provided by Respondents. See id.

28 1 In the petition, Petitioner asserts he has remained in custody since 2023, however Respondents
1 at 6 and 23-27. According to Respondents, “[o]n June 23, 2025, Petitioner was re-detained by
2 ICE officers pursuant to a warrant of removal.” Id. at 6. Respondents provide the Record of
3 Deportable/Inadmissible Alien completed June 23, 2025, reflecting Petitioner’s detention See id.
4 at 29-32.
5 Petitioner asserts that his continued detention is governed by § 1231(a)(6) because
6 Petitioner is past the 90-day removal period. See ECF No. 1, pg. 6-7. Petitioner argues that his
7 continued detention violates Zadvydas because his detention is prolonged and “his removal is not
8 significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. at 8-9 (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533
9 U.S. 678). Additionally, Petitioner argues his prolonged detention, absent a bond hearing, violates
10 his due process rights “as it no longer serves any legitimate, nonpunitive governmental interest”
11 and he was detained absent “adequate procedural safeguards.” Id. at 10 - 17. Petitioner seeks
12 immediate release and that Respondents be enjoined from “from re-detaining Petitioner under §
13 1231(a)(6) absent materially changed circumstances demonstrating a significant likelihood of
14 removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” written notice, and additional procedural
15 safeguards. Id. at 18.
16 Respondents argue that “Petitioner has a final removal order which subjects him to
17 mandatory detention in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1231.” ECF No. 6, pg. 1. Respondents argue
18 that Petitioner has only been in custody since June 23, 2025, and ten months “is generally
19 not sufficient for a prolonged detention claim.” Id. at 2. Respondent argues Petitioner’s detention
20 is distinguishable from the issue addressed in Zadvydas because “Petitioner has not demonstrated
21 that Iran would not accept him or that his removal is barred by our own laws.” Id. at 4.
22 Respondents contend that Petitioner “was interviewed by ICE ERO but seemingly refused to
23 cooperate with ICE on July 9, 2025.” Id. at 2. Respondents attach an exhibit in support of this
24 claim, which is a document dated July 9, 2025, titled “Warning for Failure to Depart,” which
25 consists of an excerpt of Section 243(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), at the
26 bottom of which indicates that Petitioner refused to sign the document. Id. at 36.
27
stated that Petitioner was previously released, ECF No. 6 at 6 and 23-27, and Petitioner concedes
28 this in the traverse/reply, ECF No. 8, pg. 4.
1 In reply, Petitioner argues he has established that removal is not significantly
2 likely in the reasonably foreseeable future because “Respondents do not identify a travel
3 document, a receiving-country acceptance, a scheduled flight, or a firm removal date” and there is
4 “no concrete repatriation evidence.” ECF No. 8, pgs. 2-3. Petitioner contends that “Respondents’
5 reliance on an asserted failure to cooperate on July 9, 2025,” is “only an instruction sheet
6 concerning assistance with removal” which does not establish that “removal would have occurred
7 but for [Petitioner’s] conduct.” Id. at 5. Finally, Petitioner argues that Petitioner’s prior release
8 demonstrates “that less restrictive alternatives are workable” and Respondents fail to “identify
9 any new individualized facts demonstrating that supervision is no longer adequate.” Id. at 6.
10
11 II. DISCUSSION
12 The undersigned finds that Petitioner is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and, given his
13 prior release due to the governments’ inability to effectuate Petitioner’s removal within the
14 required period, revocation of such release requires compliance with § 241.13(i). Upon finding
15 Petitioner was not afforded such process, the undersigned will recommend Petitioner be
16 immediately released. In light of this recommendation, the undersigned finds it is not necessary to
17 consider Petitioner’s additional claims for relief.
18 The authority of ICE to detain noncitizens under federal law derives from 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1231, which directs the Attorney General of the United States to affect the removal of any
20 noncitizen from this country within 90 days of any order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1).
21 However, once that time passes and after “removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued
22 detention is no longer authorized by statute,” the noncitizen must be released. Zadvydas v. Davis,
23 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001). Upon release, a noncitizen subject to a final order of removal must
24 comply with certain conditions of release. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3), (6).
25 The revocation of that release is governed by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i), which
26 authorizes revocation of a noncitizen’s release for violating conditions of release or purposes of
27 removal, specifically:
28 / / /
1 (1) Violation of conditions of release. Any alien who has been released under an
2 order of supervision under this section who violates any of the conditions of
release may be returned to custody and is subject to the penalties described in
3 section 243(b) of the Act. In suitable cases, the HQPDU shall refer the case to the
appropriate U.S. Attorney for criminal prosecution. The alien may be continued in
4 detention for an additional six months in order to effect the alien's removal, if
possible, and to effect the conditions under which the alien had been released.
5
(2) Revocation for removal. The Service may revoke an alien's release under this
6 section and return the alien to custody if, on account of changed circumstances, the
Service determines that there is a significant likelihood that the alien may be
7 removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. Thereafter, if the alien is not
released from custody following the informal interview provided for in paragraph
8 (h)(3) of this section, the provisions of § 241.4 shall govern the alien's continued
detention pending removal.
9
8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i),
10
The provisions of § 241.13(i) additionally outline the revocation procedure, which
11
requires: “(1) the noncitizen must be informed of the basis for revocation; (2) the noncitizen must
12
be provided a “prompt” opportunity to present evidence and explain why revocation is not
13
warranted; and (3) if the revocation is discretionary in nature, it must be made by an appropriate
14
official.” Esmail v. Noem, No. 2:25-CV-08325-WLH-RAO, 2025 WL 3030590, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
15
Sept. 12, 2025) (citing § 241.13(i)(3); § 241.4(l)(2)).
16
“It is well-established that government agencies are required to follow their own
17
regulations.” Constantinovici v. Bondi, 806 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1164 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (citing
18
United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268, 74 S.Ct. 499, 98 L.Ed. 681
19
(1954); United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672, 683 (9th Cir. 2010)). In light of this, district courts
20
have found it is appropriate to order the release of immigration detainees when it is determined
21
that ICE violated their own policies when effectuating the detention of a noncitizen. See Hoac v.
22
Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025) (finding
23
petitioner likely to succeed on his unlawful re-detention claim because “there is no indication that
24
an informal interview was provided”); Rombot v. Souza, 296 F. Supp. 3d 383, 387 (D. Mass.
25
2017)(ordering petitioner’s release because “the record does not show” that ICE followed the
26
requirements to revoke release as set forth in § 241.4); Ceesay v. Kurzdorfer, 781 F. Supp. 3d
27
137, 164 (W.D.N.Y. 2025) (finding petitioner’s due process rights were violated when ICE failed
28
1 to comply with § 241.4 when revoking petitioner’s release due to violations of the conditions of
2 release); Saeid Baniasadi v. Fereti Semaia, No. EDCV 26-01275-MWF(DSR), 2026 WL 851358
3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2026)(ordering a petitioner’s release upon finding petitioner is likely to
4 succeed on his claim that the revocation of his release was not in accordance with § 241.4).
5 When the government seeks to revoke the release of a noncitizen subject to § 1231
6 for removal, but fails to provide the process prescribed in § 241.13(i)(3), this Court has granted
7 petitions, or afforded injunctive relief, ordering the immediate release of the noncitizen. See Hoac
8 v. Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025); Vuong v.
9 Becerra, 1:25-cv-01847-DC-CSK, 2025 WL 3707172 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2025).
10 When release is revoked to effectuate removal, this Court has recognized the
11 statutory language

12 does not allow a court, in the first instance, to make an individualized finding that
a changed circumstances has occurred. Van Nguyen v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-11470-
13 MJJ, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117495, 2025 WL 1725791, at *3 (D. Mass. Jun. 20,
2025) (quoting Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 620 (1st Cir. 2023)). Instead,
14 to the extent ICE claims that it made such a determination, the court should review
that claim in light of the factors set out in 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(f), "instructing ICE on
15 how it should make such a determination." Id. The § 241.13(f) factors include but
are not limited to:
16 [T]he history of the alien's efforts to comply with the order of removal, the
history of the Service's efforts to remove aliens to the country in question
17 or to third countries, including the ongoing nature of the Service's efforts to
remove this alien and the alien's assistance with those efforts, the
18 reasonably foreseeable results of those efforts, and the views of the
Department of State regarding the prospects for removal of aliens to the
19 country or countries in question. Id.

20 Hoac v. Becerra, No. 2:25-cv-01740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771 (E.D. Cal. July
6, 2025)
21
22 In Hoac, the District Judge found respondents’ claims “there is a pending updated
23 travel document request,” a repatriation agreement between countries exists, and that removals
24 between those countries has occurred did not establish a change in circumstances which makes
25 removal reasonably foreseeable and ordered petitioner’s release. See id.; see also El-Ghazaly v.
26 Chestnut, 1:25-cv-01621-DC-CKD, 2025 WL 3485030 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025).
27 Here, Respondents contend Petitioner is detained pursuant to § 1231(a)(6) because
28 his order of removal became final January 17, 2024, and he was released seven months after that
1 on October 4, 2024. See ECF No. 6, pg. 2. Petitioner’s order of supervision, provided by
2 Respondents, specifically states that Petitioner was released “because the agency has not effected
3 your deportation or removal during the period prescribed by law.” Id. at 23. Thus, the
4 undersigned finds that revocation of Petitioner’s release is governed by 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).
5 However, Respondents make no showing that Petitioner was provided the process
6 required by § 241.13(i)(3) when revoking such release. Specifically, there is no indication that
7 Petitioner was informed why his release was revoked nor that Petitioner was provided an informal
8 interview. The closest Respondents get to claiming such process was afforded to Petitioner is the
9 claim that Petitioner “was interviewed by ICE ERO but seemingly refused to cooperate with ICE
10 on July 9, 2025.” ECF No. 6, pg. 2. However, the document provided in support of that claim
11 merely quotes Section 243(a) of the INA but does not contain any allegation that Petitioner
12 violated that section. See ECF No. 6, pg. 36. Though the document indicates that Petitioner
13 refused to sign the document, as Petitioner notes, neither Respondents nor the document explain
14 how such a refusal is related to Petitioner’s removal, nor the revocation of Petitioner’s release.
15 Indeed, such document could not establish Petitioner violated the conditions of release nor put
16 Petitioner on notice of such violation in accordance with § 241.13(i)(3) because the document is
17 dated weeks after Petitioner was detained.
18 Respondents do not claim that Petitioner’s release was revoked to effectuate his
19 removal pursuant to § 241.13(i)(2) and the undersigned finds no evidence in the record that there
20 was a change in circumstances such that Petitioner’s removal was reasonably foreseeable and
21 justified revocation of Petitioner’s release. Respondents argue Petitioner failed to establish that
22 there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future because
23 “Petitioner has not demonstrated that Iran would not accept him or that his removal
24 is barred by our own laws.” Id. at 4. However, the burden is on the government to comply with
25 their own regulations and the undersigned finds that the absence of proof that Petitioner cannot be
26 removed to Iran does not satisfy the showing needed to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).
27 Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend granting the petition and ordering Petitioner’s
28 immediate release, on the same conditions as his prior release, and that Respondents be enjoined
1 | from re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i).
2
3 Ill. CONCLUSION
4 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends:
5 1. It is RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be
6 GRANTED;
7 2. It is RECOMMENDED that Respondents be ORDERED to immediately release
g Petitioner on the same conditions as his prior release with all Petitioner’s
9 documents and possessions;
10 3. It is RECOMMENDED that Respondents be ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED
11 from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional
12 protections, which include, at a minimum, strict compliance with the requirements
13 of 8 C-F.R. § 241.13();
14 4. It is RECOMMENDED that Respondents be ORDERED to file a notice of
15 compliance within three (3) days of the District Judge’s order.
16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
17 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). The undersigned
18 || finds that a shortened objection period is warranted in this case given the nature of the relief at
19 || issue as well as the fact that the parties have had sufficient time to submit all of their arguments in
20 || written briefs. See United States v. Barney, 568 F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam)
21 | (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) sets the maximum objection period and not the minimum); see
22 || also Local Rule 304(b). Thus, within 7 days after being served with these findings and
23 || recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court. Failure to file objections
24 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (Oth
25 | Cir. 1991).
76 | Dated: May 22, 2026 = GC
27 DENNIS M. COTA
2g UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11383911. Public record. Not legal advice.