Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-01488-RBM-AHG
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
HAIXIN CAO,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, warden of Otay
Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01488-RBM-AHG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Haixin Cao’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	(Doc. 1.) 	For the reasons
below, the Court GRANTS in part the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	Factual Background
Petitioner, a citizen of China, entered the United States on May 18, 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 16–
18.) He was immediately apprehended by Customs and Border Patrol officers and taken
into immigration custody, where he has remained since. 	(Id. ¶ 18.) 	The Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) initially found Petitioner did not have a credible fear of
persecution, but reversed after Petitioner’s second credible fear interview and allowed him
to move forward with an asylum application. (Id. ¶ 19.) Petitioner’s Notice to Appear was
filed on September 5, 2025. 	(Id.) 	He has had three Master Calendar hearings, and his
individual merits hearing is set for May 11, 2026. (Id.)
B. 	Procedural Background
Petitioner filed the Petition on March 10, 2026. (Doc. 1.) The same day, the Court
Case 3:26-cv-01488-RBM-AHG Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-01488-RBM-AHG
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
issued an Order to Show Cause and set a briefing schedule. (Doc. 2.) Respondents filed
their Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Return”) on March 17, 2026. (Doc. 3.)
Petitioner filed his Traverse to Petition (“Reply”) on March 23, 2026. (Doc. 4.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2).
“The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” 	Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues that his detention without a bond hearing has become unreasonably
prolonged in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 33–44.)
Respondents note that although they believe Petitioner’s detention is mandated by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b), they “do not oppose entry of an order requiring a bond hearing before an
immigration judge (IJ) during this Petitioner’s removal proceedings.” (Doc. 3 at 1.) In his
Reply, Petitioner “restates his request for immediate release as a remedy” or, alternatively,
asks the Court to set certain conditions regarding the bond hearing. (Doc. 4 at 2.)
Because Respondents do not oppose the request for a bond hearing, the Court
GRANTS the Petition. 	The Court does not, however, find that immediate release is
appropriate. 	Although an unreasonably prolonged detention can entitle a petitioner to
habeas relief in the form of a bond hearing, the Court disagrees that it “can rise to the level
of a constitutional violation warranting release.” (See Doc. 1 at 13 (citing Kydyrali v. Wolf,
499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 773 (S.D. Cal. 2020)) (emphasis added).) Even the court in Kydyrali
ordered that the petitioner must be provided a bond hearing, not that he must be released.
Case 3:26-cv-01488-RBM-AHG Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-01488-RBM-AHG
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
Kydyrali, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 774–75. This approach is consistent with rulings issued by
this Court and other courts in this District, and the Court sees no reason to deviate from
them here. 	See, e.g., Xie v. LaRose, Case No.: 3:26-cv-00529-RBM-DDL, 2026 WL
549909, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2026) (ordering bond hearing); Gao v. LaRose, 805 F.
Supp. 3d 1106, 1112 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (same).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED in part. 	Respondents are
ORDERED to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration
judge within ten (10) days of entry of this Order to determine whether his continued
detention is warranted. 	Respondents shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and
convincing evidence,1 that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.
If no hearing occurs within ten (10) days of entry of this Order, Petitioner shall be released
from Respondents’ custody. On or before April 13, 2026, Respondents SHALL FILE a
status report indicating whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing, and the
outcome of that hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 25, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 See Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1090, 1095 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (“Petitioner is entitled
to a prompt and individualized bond hearing, at which Respondents must justify her
continued detention by a showing of clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner would
likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.”) (citing Singh v. Holder, 638
F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez,
583 U.S. 281 (2018) (explaining that “the substantial liberty interest at stake” warranted
placing the burden on the government to “prove by clear and convincing evidence that [a
noncitizen] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond”).
Case 3:26-cv-01488-RBM-AHG Document 5 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3