Aydiner v. Larose et al

1
26-cv-0566-JES-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ILKER AYINDER,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden, Otay
Mesa Detention Center, San Diego,
California; PATRICK DIVVER, Field
Office Director, San Diego Office of
Detention and Removal, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; TODD
M. LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; and
PAM BONDI, Attorney General of the
United States, in their official capacities,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0566-JES-MSB
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING PETITION IN
PART; and
(2) ORDERING BOND HEARING
[ECF No. 1]
//
//
//
Case 3:26-cv-00566-JES-MSB Document 7 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-0566-JES-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Before the Court is Petitioner Ilker Aydiner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on January 29, 2026. ECF No. 1.
Respondents responded to the Petition on February 3, 2026 (ECF No. 4), and Petitioner
filed a Traverse on February 4, 2026 (ECF No. 6).
The parties agree that Petitioner is entitled an order for a bond hearing from this
Court. ECF Nos. 1 at 19; 4 at 2; 6 at 7. The Court notes that while Respondents state that
Petitioner is part of the Bond Eligible class in Maldonado Bautista, at least one court has
disagreed. See Xie v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-03649-RBM-MSB, 2026 WL 92066, at *1-2
(S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2026) (finding that petitioner who had previously been apprehended
upon arrival and released on conditional parole was not part of the class). Regardless,
however, the Court does agree with Respondents that Petitioner’s re-detention is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1226 rather than § 1225, irrespective of and independently from Maldonado
Bautista. The Court has previously held that where a petitioner is apprehended at the
border, paroled into the country, and had been residing in the country when he was re-
detained, his detention is governed by § 1226. See, e.g., Martinez Lopez v. Noem et al., No:
25-cv-2717-JES-AHG, 2025 WL 3030457, at *4-5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025) (explaining
reasoning and citing cases); Beltran et al. v. Noem et al., No. 25-cv-2650-LL-DEB, 2025
WL 3078837, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025) (holding same); Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-
cv-3759-LL-BLM, 2026 WL 194745, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2026) (same).
Petitioner additionally requests an expedited timeline for a bond hearing due to his
uncontested and documented medical conditions. ECF Nos. 1 ¶¶ 25-29; 6 ¶ 11. Considering
these issues, and Respondents’ concession regarding Petitioner’s detention, the Court finds
it proper to order a bond hearing within seven days of this order.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition in part and ORDERS Respondents
to provide Petitioner with a bond determination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within
seven days of this Order. At the hearing, Respondents may not deny Petitioner bond on
the basis that he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Respondents are ORDERED to
Case 3:26-cv-00566-JES-MSB Document 7 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-0566-JES-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
File a Notice of Compliance within five days of providing Petitioner with a bond
redetermination hearing, including apprising the Court of the results of the hearing.
Because the requested relief is granted, the Court DENIES the remainder of
Petitioner’s claims as moot. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00566-JES-MSB Document 7 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3