Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-CV-599 JLS (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
BINIAM GEBRESLASE KIDANE,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-CV-599 JLS (SBC)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 7)
Presently before the Court is Biniam Gebreslase Kidane’s Amended Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 7). Also before the
Court is Respondents’ Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Ret.,” ECF No. 9)
and Petitioner’s Traverse (ECF No. 10). 	For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a citizen of Eritrea, alleges that he has been detained by the United States
Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) division at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since November 28, 2024, when he
entered the United States. Pet. at 2. Petitioner was placed into removal proceedings and
ordered removed to Ethiopia. Id. Petitioner appealed this decision, and the appeal is still
Case 3:26-cv-00599-JLS-SBC Document 11 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
26-CV-599 JLS (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
pending. 	Id. 	Petitioner argues that his prolonged detention violates the Due Process
Clause. Id. at 3.
LEGAL STANDARD
A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the
legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of
his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial
body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the
court of appeals. 	See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales,
418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat.
231, § 106(a)). 	However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising
independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention—
federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. 	Nadarajah v. Gonzales,
443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez,
138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal.
2018) (citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
“Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court have provided guidance regarding
the point at which an immigration detainee’s prolonged mandatory detention becomes
unconstitutional.” Amado v. United States Dep’t of Just., No. 25CV2687-LL(DDL), 2025
WL 3079052, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). 	However, “[n]early all district courts that
have considered [the constitutionality of prolonged mandatory detention] agree that
prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing,
will—at some point—violate the right to due process.” 	Singh v. Barr, 400 F. Supp. 3d
1005 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (cleaned up)
(collecting cases). 	In determining whether detention has become unreasonable, courts
evaluate factors including “the total length of detention to date, the likely duration of future
detention, and the delays in the removal proceedings caused by the petitioner and the
government.” Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022). Some courts
Case 3:26-cv-00599-JLS-SBC Document 11 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
26-CV-599 JLS (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
also consider the conditions of detention and the likelihood that the removal proceedings
will result in a final order of removal. See, e.g., Sadeqi v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2587-RSH-
BJW, 2025 WL 3154520, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025).
The Court finds that Petitioner has established he is entitled to a bond hearing.
Petitioner’s length of detention, now over sixteen months, without a bond hearing weighs
in Petitioner’s favor. Courts have found detention of similar lengths without a bond hearing
weighs towards a finding that detention has become unreasonable. 	See, e.g., Guatam v.
Corr. Corp of Am., No. 3:25-CV-3600-JES-DEB, 2026 WL 25846, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5,
2026) (finding that one-year detention weighed in favor of granting a bond hearing); Sadeqi
v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2587-RSH-BJW, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12,
2025) (finding that eleven month detention without a bond hearing “absent meaningful
rebuttal by [r]espondents” was unreasonable and violated due process). 	The length of
detention therefore favors Petitioner.
As to the likely duration of future detention, Petitioner argues that he “has reason to
anticipate significant future detention during his appellate process” since his BIA appeal is
still pending and, he plans on appealing to the Ninth Circuit. 	Pet. at 8 (citing Banda v.
McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1119 (W.D. Wash. 2019)). 	The Court agrees, since
Respondents “cannot predict with any degree of confidence when the BIA appeal will be
resolved.” Masood v. Barr, No. 19-CV-07623-JD, 2020 WL 95633, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan.
8, 2020). 	Respondents argue that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and that the length of Petitioner’s detention—which Respondents
incorrectly state as fourteen months—is not unconstitutionally prolonged. 	Ret. at 5–7.
However, Respondents fail to address Petitioner’s pending appeal. See Ret. Therefore, the
likely duration of future detention weighs in Petitioner’s favor.
Delay in removal proceedings is neutral since the record does not suggest delay by
Respondents nor Petitioner. 	See generally Pet.; Ret. Balancing the discussed factors, the
Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged, and
therefore, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing.
Case 3:26-cv-00599-JLS-SBC Document 11 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
26-CV-599 JLS (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
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART1 Petitioner’s Amended
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 7), and ORDERS Respondents to provide
Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within fourteen (14) days before a neutral
immigration judge in which the government bears the burden of establishing by clear and
convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk if released.
If no hearing occurs within fourteen days of this Order, Petitioner shall be released from
Respondents’ custody. The Parties SHALL file a Joint Status Report by April 13, 2026,
informing the Court of the outcome of the hearing. As this concludes the litigation in this
matter, the Clerk of Court SHALL close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2026
1 The Court declines to address the issues raised by Petitioner regarding the neutrality of immigration
courts generally.
Case 3:26-cv-00599-JLS-SBC Document 11 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4