Chehrazi v. Noem et al

1 26-cv-0957-AGS-BJW
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
Mohammad Sina CHEHRAZI,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0957-AGS-BJW
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Petitioner Mohammad Chehrazi seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 to free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a
claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary
dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules
permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth,
114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any
potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id.
In February 2025, Chehrazi, “a native and citizen of Iran,” “attempted to enter the
United States without authorization” and appears to have been detained since then. (ECF 1,
at 3.) Almost a year later, on “1/13/2026,” an immigration judge “denied his application
for relief and ordered him removed from the United States to Iran.” (Id.) But Chehrazi
“appealed the removal order, and his appeal is currently pending before the Board of
Immigration Appeals.” (Id.) He now asserts that his continued detention “violates the Due
Process Clause.” (Id.)
Case 3:26-cv-00957-AGS-BJW Document 3 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2 26-cv-0957-AGS-BJW
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
This challenge warrants an answer. Some courts have concluded that prolonged
detention can violate due process even for those subject to mandatory detention under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). See, e.g., Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772 (S.D. Cal. 2020)
(“[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across the country in concluding that an
unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized
bond hearing violates due process.”). So, by February 23, 2026, the government must
answer. Any reply by the petitioner is due February 27, 2026, and the Court will hold a
hearing on March 3, 2026, at 1:00 p.m.
Dated: February 17, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00957-AGS-BJW Document 3 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2