Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26cv1209-LL-BJW
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
AKSHAT PRAJAPATI,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden, of
Otay Mesa Detention Center;
et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26cv1209-LL-BJW
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is Petitioner Akshat Prajapati’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed a Return [ECF No.
4], and Petitioner filed a Traverse [ECF No. 5]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
DENIES the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of India who initially entered the United States in August 2023
on an F-1 student visa. Pet. ¶¶ 1-2. Petitioner alleges that “due to difficulties in India, he
was not able to continue to pay tuition.” Id. This put his student visa in jeopardy and his
visa was canceled for lack of payment of tuition on March 21, 2024. Id.; see also Return at
Case 3:26-cv-01209-LL-BJW Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
26cv1209-LL-BJW
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
2 (citing Form 1-213, Exhibit 1). Before his visa expired, Petitioner filed for asylum and
that application is still pending. Pet. ¶ 2; see also Return at 2. Petitioner has also applied
for and received work authorization. Pet. ¶ 2. Petitioner states that he has found a place to
live and has integrated himself into the local community. Id. ¶ 3. “He began working for
Subway and eventually became a regional manager,” and also “worked for UBER to
supplement his income.” Id. On November 30, 2025, Petitioner was driving north from San
Diego back to Los Angeles and picked up an “Uber fare.” Id. ¶ 4. When he arrived to drop
off his customer at Camp Pendleton, he was apprehended and detained. Id.
On February 25, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. Pet. He seeks a writ of
habeas corpus directing Respondents to release him from custody. Id. at 20. Petitioner
alleges that his detention “without an individualized determination violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act.” Id. He also seeks
that the Court declare his “warrantless arrest and detention an unreasonable and unlawful
seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Id. Finally, Petitioner seeks an order
“prohibiting Respondents from enrolling Petitioner in any Alternatives to Detention
program.” Id.
Respondents state in their Return that Petitioner has already received a bond hearing
and that a determination has already been made that he is a “flight risk.” Return at 2 (citing
Ex. 2, December 19, 2025 Order of the Immigration Judge. Respondents argue that “given
that Petitioner received an individualized bond hearing” he has already received the due
process to which he is entitled.” Id. at 3.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus when a petitioner “is in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c); Magana-Pizano v. I.N.S., 200 F.3d 603, 609 (9th Cir. 1999) (“28 U.S.C. § 2241
expressly permits the federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to aliens when those
aliens are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.’”). In federal habeas proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proving his case
Case 3:26-cv-01209-LL-BJW Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
26cv1209-LL-BJW
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
by a preponderance of evidence. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 970 n.16 (9th Cir.
2004); Bellew v. Gunn, 532 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1976) (citations omitted).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends that he was illegally detained and must be released. Petitioner
states that “the government admitted [Petitioner] into the United States on a visitors visa”
and “prior to its expiration, he filed for asylum and was allowed to remain at liberty.”
Traverse at 13. Petitioner alleges that “when ICE detained [Petitioner] no one articulated
what change in individual circumstances had led the agency to find that he was now a flight
risk 	or a danger to the community.” 	Id. 	Accordingly, Petitioner argues 	that 	“the
government’s actions violate the Administrative Procedures Act and Due Process.” Id.
Notably, none of the cases that Petitioner relies on in his Petition or Traverse are in the
context of a Petitioner who had an expired F-1 visa. Rather, the cases that Petitioner relies
on are in the context of petitioners who had previously been granted parole. See Traverse
at 16-17 (citing Espinoza v. Kaiser, 2025 WL 2675785 at *9 (E.D. Cal. 2025); Fernandez
Lopez v. Wofford, 2025 WL 2959319, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. 2025); Noori v. Larose, 2025 WL
2800149, *4, 9-10 (S.D. Cal. 2025)). Additionally, Respondents state that Petitioner has
already been given an individualized bond hearing, and that Petitioner was denied bond
because the Immigration Judge found that he was a flight risk. See ECF No. 4 at 9
(December 19, 2025 Order of Immigration Judge). Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Petitioner’s Petition on the grounds that there is no authority that Petitioner has presented
or that the Court is aware of that would entitle Petitioner to immediate release or the other
relief requested in the Petition given the facts of this case.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-01209-LL-BJW Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
26cv1209-LL-BJW
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
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01209-LL-BJW Document 6 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4