Hadi v. Noem et al

1
26-cv-255-RSH-JLB
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
ISMAIL HADI,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, et al,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-255-RSH-JLB
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On January 15, 2026, petitioner Ismail Hadi filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”), as well as a motion for a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. Petitioner was arrested by U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on July 14, 2025, and is detained at the Imperial Regional
Detention Center in Calexico, California. ECF No. 1 at 2. Petitioner challenges the
lawfulness of his continued detention. Respondents have filed a return. ECF No. 5. As set
forth below, the Court grants the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a citizen of Somalia, entered the United States in 2006. ECF No. 1 at 2.
Due to a subsequent criminal conviction, Petitioner was ordered removed on November
17, 2014. Id. at 3; ECF No. 5 at 1. Due to the inability of DHS to remove Petitioner to
Case 3:26-cv-00255-RSH-JLB Document 7 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

2
26-cv-255-RSH-JLB
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
Somalia at that time, on June 18, 2015, he was released pursuant to an order of supervision.
ECF No. 5 at 1.
On July 15, 2025, Petitioner was arrested and re-detained to execute his outstanding
order of removal. ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 5 at 1.
The Petition contends that (1) DHS failed to comply with its own regulations in
revoking 	Petitioner’s 	order 	of 	supervision, 	warranting 	Petitioner’s 	release 	from
immigration custody; (2) there is no significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future, such that his continued indefinite detention violates due
process; and (3) DHS should be prohibited from removing Petitioner to a country other
than Somalia, unless DHS provides Petitioner with adequate notice and an opportunity to
be heard.
In their Return, Respondents advise that on December 17, 2025, the Somalian
government issued a travel document for Petitioner, and that DHS has scheduled
Petitioner’s removal to Somalia for the first week of February. ECF No. 5 at 1.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits 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). A detainee bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	ANALYSIS
The detention and release of noncitizens who are subject to a final order of removal
is addressed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Under that statute, “when an alien is ordered removed,
the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90
days.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). “If the alien does not leave or is not removed within the
removal period, the alien, pending removal, shall be subject to supervision under
regulations prescribed by the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3). Petitioner was
ordered removed in 2014; was released on an order of supervision in 2015; and argues that
Case 3:26-cv-00255-RSH-JLB Document 7 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

3
26-cv-255-RSH-JLB
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
DHS failed to comply with applicable regulations in revoking that release in 2025. ECF
No. 1 at 5 (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l), 241.13(i)).
Respondents, in candor, concede that DHS did not comply with the applicable
regulations in revoking Petitioner’s release. ECF No. 5 at 2. Respondents contend,
however, that (1) this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to order Petitioner’s release
here, and (2) even if this Court had jurisdiction, Petitioner is required to and fails to show
prejudice from the non-compliance. Id. at 2, 5.
Petitioner’s jurisdictional argument is based on 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). That provision
states that, except as otherwise provided in Section 1252, and notwithstanding any other
provision of law including 8 U.S.C. § 2241, “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any
cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the
Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders
against any alien under this chapter.” The Supreme Court has interpreted the jurisdiction-
stripping provision in Section 1252(g) provisions narrowly, limiting it to “three discrete
actions”: the “‘decision or action’ to ‘commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute
removal orders.’” Reno v. Am.–Arab Anti–Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482
(1999) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)). The Supreme Court noted that “[t]here are of course
many other decisions or actions that may be part of the deportation process.” Id. In a later
decision, the Court explained that it did not interpret Section 1252(g) “to sweep in any
claim that can technically be said to ‘arise from’ the three listed actions of the Attorney
General. Instead, [the Court] read the language to refer to just those three specific actions
themselves.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 294 (2018).
Respondents contend that in the circumstances of this case—where DHS has
obtained a travel document for Petitioner, and has made flight plans to effectuate
Petitioner’s removal—“the Court cannot order immediate release because such an order
would impinge on DHS’s discretionary authority over when to execute a removal order—
a discrete action over which this Court lacks jurisdiction.” ECF No. 5 at 3. The Court
disagrees. Here, Petitioner is seeking to review the legality of his detention, rather than
Case 3:26-cv-00255-RSH-JLB Document 7 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

4
26-cv-255-RSH-JLB
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
challenging the commencement of removal proceedings, the adjudication of his removal
case, or the execution of his order of removal. Petitioner has not asked to enjoin his removal
to Somalia, and the Court has not preliminarily restrained or enjoined that removal. Instead,
Petitioner challenges the lawful authority under which he is presently detained. The fact
that Respondents have now made travel plans for Petitioner does not divest the Court of
authority to consider the lawfulness of Petitioner’s detention, and Respondents have cited
no case finding a lack of jurisdiction in these circumstances. In contrast, other courts have
ordered a petitioner’s release based on a failure of DHS to follow its regulations in revoking
an order of supervision, even though the respondents had already secured travel documents
for the petitioner’s removal. See, e.g., Truong v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2597-JES-MMP, 2025
WL 2988357 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2025); Sphabmixay v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2648-LL-VET,
2025 WL 3034071 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025). Nor is the Court persuaded that an order of
release in this case will in fact interfere with DHS’s intended removal of Petitioner,
whatever the precise date that Respondents had planned. The prompt issuance of this order
permits Respondents to take all lawful steps to effectuate Petitioner’s removal.
Respondents argue, in the alternative, that “[s]hould the Court decline to dismiss the
claim as moot, it should be denied because Petitioner cannot show that the outcome of his
case would have been different had ICE provided him with a written notice and interview
concerning his revocation.” ECF No. 5 at 5. But this Court has not been asked to re-
adjudicate Petitioner’s immigration case or to revisit the “outcome of his case,” namely,
the final order of removal. This Court is addressing the legality of Petitioner’s present
detention rather than reviewing the merits of his removal order.
Government agencies are required to follow their own regulations. United States ex
rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268 (1954); Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v.
Norton, 340 F.3d 835, 852 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts have determined that where DHS fails
to follow its own regulations in revoking release, the detention is unlawful and the
petitioner’s release must be ordered. See, e.g., Orellana v. Baker, No. 25-1788-TDC, 2025
WL 2444087, at *8 (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2025); M.S.L. v. Bostock, No. 6:25-cv-1204-AA,
Case 3:26-cv-00255-RSH-JLB Document 7 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

5
26-cv-255-RSH-JLB
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
2025 WL 2430267, at *10 (D. Or. Aug. 21, 2025); Ceesay v. Kurzdorfer, 781 F. Supp. 3d
137, 165-66 (W.D.N.Y. 2025); Rombot v. Souza, 296 F. Supp. 3d 383, 388 (D. Mass.
2017). This Court reaches the same conclusion here.
In light of the disposition herein and the facts indicating the likelihood of Petitioner’s
removal to Somalia, the Court declines to issue further injunctive relief.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ordered to
release petitioner Ismail Hadi from custody within one (1) day of the date of this Order.
This Order does not restrain or enjoin Respondents from taking any and all lawful steps to
effectuate Petitioner’s removal, including releasing Petitioner on an order of supervision
containing appropriate terms—such as a condition requiring GPS monitoring, similar to
that contained in Petitioner’s prior order of supervision from 2015. See ECF No. 5-3 at 2.
Petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order [ECF No. 2] is DENIED
as moot.
The hearing currently scheduled for February 5, 2026 is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00255-RSH-JLB Document 7 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5