Chen v. Rosa et al

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
JL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Ji Chu Chen,
Petitioner,
v.
Luis Rosa, Jr., et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-02849-PHX-SMB (JZB)
ORDER
Petitioner brings a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (Doc. 1) challenging his immigration detention.
Petitioner is a native and citizen of China who entered the United States in 2009 to
seek asylum. (Id. ¶ 3.) On February 15, 2011, Petitioner was granted asylum, and he later
became a legal permanent resident. (Id.) On July 20, 2022, Petitioner was convicted of
various state crimes. (Id.) Petitioner subsequently left the United States, and when he
attempted to re-enter the United States on September 5, 2025, he was detained and placed
into removal proceedings. (Id.) The Notice to Appear indicates Petitioner is an arriving
alien and charges him as subject to removal because he has been convicted of two or more
offenses for which the aggregate sentences to confinement were five years or more. (Doc.
1-1 at 2.)
On September 24, 2025, Petitioner requested discretionary release, which was
denied. (Id.) Petitioner also applied for asylum in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and
his application remains pending. (Id.) Petitioner contends his liberty interest mandates his
Case 2:26-cv-02849-SMB--JZB Document 3 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
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
immediate release from custody or a custody redetermination hearing. (Id. at 7.)
An alien unlawfully present in the United States “has only those rights regarding
admission that Congress has provided by statute.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v.
Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020); see also Lopez v. Noem, CV-26-00345 (JHR),
2026 WL 266597, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2026). Petitioner acknowledges he is not eligible
for bond because he is designated as an arriving alien on his Notice to Appear and is
therefore subject to mandatory detention. (Id. ¶ 12.) His mandatory detention during his
removal proceedings, which has not surpassed eight months, is not unreasonably
prolonged. Petitioner is not entitled to a bond hearing under the Due Process Clause. The
Petition will therefore be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied.
The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
Dated this 27th day of April, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-02849-SMB--JZB Document 3 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 2