Mullin

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MOHIT MOHIT, Case No. 1:26-cv-03857-KES-EPG-HC

12 Petitioners, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF

13 v. HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECT

RESPONDENTS TO IMMEDIATELY

14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al., RELEASE PETITIONER

15 Respondents.

16

17 Petitioner, represented by counsel, is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a

18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

19 For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned recommends granting the petition for

20 writ of habeas corpus and ordering that Respondents immediately release Petitioner.

21 I.

22 BACKGROUND

23 Petitioner is a citizen of India who entered the United States on approximately April 27,

24 2023. Petitioner was released on parole on approximately April 28, 2023. Petitioner timely filed

25 for asylum, completed check-ins, and completed the other conditions of release required of him.

26 Petitioner has no criminal history. (ECF No. 1 at 7.1) On April 7, 2026, an immigration judge

27 (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner’s removal to India. (ECF No. 6-3.) On April 14, 2026, Petitioner filed

1 an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that is still pending. On April 15,

2 2026, Petitioner was re-arrested. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) On May 12, 2026, Petitioner had a custody

3 redetermination hearing at the Conroe Immigration Court in Conroe, Texas, but he was denied

4 bond due to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner was eventually transferred to the Golden State Annex,

5 where he remains detained. (Id. at 8.)

6 On May 19, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting

7 the following claims for relief: (1) Petitioner’s re-detention without notice and a pre-deprivation

8 hearing violated due process; (2) the application of § 1225(b)(2) to Petitioner violates the

9 Immigration and Nationality Act; and (3) the application of § 1225(b)(2) to Petitioner violates 8

10 C.F.R. §§ 236.1, 1236.1, and 1003.19. (ECF No. 1 at 18–21.) On June 3, 2026, Respondent filed

11 an answer, and Petitioner filed a reply on June 4, 2026. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.)

12 II.

13 DISCUSSION

14 Respondents argue that “Petitioner entered the United States illegally and is thus an

15 ‘applicant for admission’ who is subject to mandatory detention” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), the

16 “due process claims of applicants for admission are coextensive with the applicable detention

17 statute,” and a “prior release does not have the effect of having converted an alien’s presence in

18 the United States into an admission.” (ECF No. 6 at 2, 3.) These arguments have been rejected

19 by this Court in other proceedings. See, e.g., Clene C.D. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-cv-01463-KES-

20 SKO (HC), 2026 WL 84302 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2026); R.A.N.O. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-

21 01535-KES-EPG (HC), 2026 WL 40507 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2026); Bilal A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-

22 cv-01715-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025); Elmer Joel M. C. v.

23 Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01622-KES-CDB (HC), 2025 WL 3501200 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2025);

24 Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-cv-01471-KES-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 3254999 (E.D. Cal. Nov.

25 22, 2025); W.V.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv-01489-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3236521 (E.D.

26 Cal. Nov. 19, 2025).

27 Respondents attempt to distinguish the instant matter from the cases in which this Court

1 judge ordering Petitioner removed. Neither the statute nor the constitution requires an additional

2 hearing before Petitioner may be re-detained once such a change in circumstances has occurred.”

3 (ECF No. 6 at 4.) Although an immigration judge may have issued a decision ordering

4 Petitioner’s removal, an “order of deportation” “become[s] final upon the earlier of--(i) a

5 determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such order; or (ii) the expiration of

6 the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of

7 Immigration Appeals.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(47)(A), (B). Here, the IJ’s removal order was issued on

8 April 7, 2026. (ECF No. 6-3.) Petitioner had the right to appeal the decision to the Board of

9 Immigration Appeals within thirty calendar days. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner was re-detained on April

10 15, 2026, before the thirty-day appeal period expired. Moreover, Petitioner filed an appeal with

11 the BIA. Thus, the removal order is not final and was not executable at the time of Petitioner’s

12 re-detention.

13 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends granting the petition for the

14 reasons stated in cases set forth above.2 Courts in this district have taken differing approaches to

15 the relief granted to petitioners who have been released, subsequently re-detained, and denied

16 bond hearings in violation of due process. In some cases, the immediate release of the petitioner

17 has been ordered. See, e.g., Yurani Hortua v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01670-TLN-JDP, 2025 WL

18 3525916 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025) (ordering immediate release of petitioner who had been

19 released from immigration detention on parole, was arrested for theft but the case was resolved

20 with community service and did not result in a conviction, and was re-detained at a routine six-

21 month check-in); Carmen G.C. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-cv-01648-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL

22 3521304 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025) (ordering immediate release of petitioner who allegedly

23 violated reporting requirements four times); Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01755-

24 DAD-AC, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025) (ordering immediate release of petitioner

25 who allegedly “incurred compliance violations” that were not identified and where respondents

26 did not suggest the alleged violations were the reason for petitioner’s re-detention).

27

1 In other cases, bond hearings have been ordered rather than immediate release. See, e.g.,

2 J.E.H.G. v. Chesnut, No. 1:25-cv-01673-JLT SKO, 2025 WL 3523108 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025)

3 (ordering bond hearing for petitioner who allegedly violated reporting requirements numerous

4 times and was re-detained based on said violations); Paz Aguilera v. Albarran, No. 1:25-cv-

5 01619 JLT SAB, 2025 WL 3485016 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025) (ordering bond hearing for

6 petitioner who allegedly violated reporting requirements one time and was re-detained based on

7 said violation); Sharan S. v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01427-KES-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 3167826

8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025) (ordering bond hearing for petitioner who allegedly violated reporting

9 requirements eight times).

10 Here, Respondents do not allege, and there is nothing in the record before this Court, that

11 Petitioner violated his conditions of release. Respondents do not contend that Petitioner is a

12 danger or flight risk. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s immediate release is the

13 appropriate remedy.

14 III.

15 RECOMMENDATION

16 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that:

17 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be GRANTED on Count One;

18 2. Respondents be directed to immediately release Petitioner from custody with the same

19 conditions he was subject to immediately prior to his re-detention; and

20 3. Respondents be enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Petitioner unless they

21 demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a

22 neutral decisionmaker, that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that

23 his physical custody is legally justified.3

24 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

25 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local

26 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

27

3 This does not address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event he

1 | FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file

2 | written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and

3 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

4 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed

5 | within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The assigned United States District

6 | Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

7 | The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the

8 | right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir.

9 | 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12} Dated: _ June 11, 2026 [Jee hey —

3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28