Kasgimjan v. LaRose et al

1
26-cv-282-RSH-SBC
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
SAMAN EBRAHIMI KASGIMJAN,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden,
Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-282-RSH-SBC
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On January 16, 2026, petitioner Saman Ebrahimi Kasgimjan filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner, an
applicant for asylum, is detained by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (“ICE”)
at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, California. Id. at 1. Petitioner was arrested
on January 25, 2025, is awaiting a hearing before an immigration judge on his request for
asylum. Id. at 3, 5.
The same date that the Petition was entered on the Court’s docket, the Court ordered
a briefing schedule. ECF No. 2. Respondents have not timely filed a return or sought an
extension of time to do so.
The Court liberally construes the Petition as arguing that Petitioner’s continued
detention without a bond hearing at this point in time—now over 12 months since his
Case 3:26-cv-00282-RSH-SBC Document 3 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-282-RSH-SBC
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
arrest—violates due process.
In determining whether Petitioner’s detention has become prolonged, the Court
applies a six-factor balancing test used by some district courts. See, e.g., Kydyrali v. Wolf,
499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 773-74 (S.D. Cal. 2020); Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099,
1106 (W.D. Wash. 2019). That test considers: (1) the total length of detention to date; (2)
the likely duration of future detention; (3) conditions of detention; (4) delays in the removal
proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the
government; and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final order
of removal. Kydyrali, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 773–74.
Respondents have argued in other, similar cases that “[i]n general, as detention
continues past a year, courts become extremely wary of permitting continued custody
absent a bond hearing.” See, e.g., Santos Campos v. LaRose, No. 26-cv-29-RSH-JLB, Dkt.
No. 5 at 10 (respondents’ return quoting Sibomana v. LaRose, No. 22-cv-933-LL-NLS,
2023 WL 3028093, at *4 (S.D. Cal. April 20, 2023)); Naseif v. LaRose, No. 26-cv-30-
RSH-BJW, Dkt. No. 5 at 8 (same). This proposition, applied to Petitioner’s length of
detention, favors a bond hearing here. Petitioner’s conditions of confinement also favor
setting a bond hearing. Courts in this district have found that conditions at the Otay Mesa
Detention Center are “indistinguishable from penal confinement,” and that this factor
weighs in favor of petitioners’ due process arguments of prolonged detention. Kydyrali,
499 F. Supp. 3d at 773; see also Hoyos Amado v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 25-cv-2687-
LL-DDL, 2025 WL 3079052, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). Upon consideration of these
and the other factors in light of the record, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s mandatory
detention has become prolonged at this point.
Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing, at
which Respondents must justify his continued detention by a showing of clear and
convincing evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if
released. See 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
Case 3:26-cv-00282-RSH-SBC Document 3 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-282-RSH-SBC
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
liberty interest at stake” warranted placing the burden on the government to “prove by clear
and convincing evidence that an alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify
denial of bond”); see also Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 785–86 (9th Cir. 2024) (stating
that “the BIA properly noted that the government bore the burden to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that Martinez is a danger to the community” with respect to a bond
hearing for a noncitizen detained under § 1226(c)).
The Petition is therefore GRANTED. Respondents are directed to arrange an
individualized 	bond 	hearing 	for 	petitioner 	Saman 	Ebrahimi 	Kasgimjan 	before 	an
immigration court as described above within ten (10) days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00282-RSH-SBC Document 3 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3