Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26cv1004-LL-MSB
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
FATEHULLAH SHAHRANI,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26v1004-LL-MSB
ORDER GRANTING AMENDED
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[ECF No. 7]
Before the Court is Petitioner Fatehullah Shahrani’s Amended Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 7 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed a Return in
opposition to the Petition [ECF No. 8 (“Ret.”)], and Petitioner filed a Traverse [ECF No. 9
(“Traverse”)]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a native of Afghanistan who was an interpreter for high-ranking Afghan
government and military officials based in the Afghan Embassy in Turkey. Declaration of
Fatehullah Shahrani (“Shahrani Decl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 7-1. After the Taliban took power in
2021, Turkey terminated Petitioner’s mission at the Embassy in 2025. Id. ¶ 2. Fearing his
life, Petitioner fled Turkey before he could be sent back to Afghanistan. Id. ¶ 3. Petitioner
arrived in Tijuana, Mexico and applied for an appointment using the CBP One, but his
Case 3:26-cv-01004-LL-MSB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 9

2
26cv1004-LL-MSB
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
appointment was later cancelled when President Trump took office in January 2025. Id. ¶
4. Petitioner sought help from the United States consulate, various senators, and nonprofit
organizations like Afghan Evac but received no response. Shahrani Decl. ¶ 5. On June 5,
2025, Petitioner crossed the border and was taken into immigration custody. Id. ¶ 6; ECF
No. 8-1 at 2. On June 13, 2025, Petitioner was transferred to the Otay Mesa Detention
Center (“OMDC”), where he told the officers that he was seeking asylum. Shahrani Decl.
¶ 7. However, he was not provided with a credible fear interview and was only given a
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) interview on July 11, 2025, in which an asylum
officer made a positive finding under CAT. Shahrani Decl. ¶ 7; Ret. at 2. To date, Petitioner
has not received a credible fear interview. Shahrani Decl. ¶ 7. On July 16, 2025, Petitioner
was transferred to a detention center in Arizona until August 5, 2025 when he was
transferred back to OMDC. Id. ¶ 8. On July 31, 2025, Petitioner was issued a Notice to
Appear. Ret. at 2; ECF No. 8-1 at 7. The first master calendar hearing was scheduled for
August 11, 2025, but Respondents allege that Petitioner delayed the proceedings for four
months until November 20, 2025. Ret. at 2. Petitioner’s merits hearing was scheduled for
March 5, 2026, but Petitioner was told on February 17, 2026 that the assigned immigration
judge will be changing, which will likely change the hearing date. Shahrani Decl. ¶ 11.
Petitioner’s hearing is now scheduled for April 1, 2026. Ret. at 2.
Petitioner has been detained since June 5, 2025. Shahrani Decl. ¶ 6. He alleges that
his health is deteriorating. Id. ¶ 15. Specifically, he has developed a problem with his blood
sugar levels that may be related to him losing his vision in his right eye. Id. He also alleges
that he has never committed any crime and that he is having trouble tracking his colleagues
and other relevant witnesses to support his asylum case while in detention. Id. ¶¶ 16, 18.
On February 12, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, alleging that his
prolonged detention without a bond hearing is creating an adverse effect on his mental and
physical health. ECF No. 1 at 6. This Court appointed counsel and Petitioner submitted an
amended petition on February 26, 2026. ECF Nos. 2, 7. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus
Case 3:26-cv-01004-LL-MSB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 9

3
26cv1004-LL-MSB
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
directing Respondents to immediately release him from custody or in the alternative, a
bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. ECF No. 7 at 18–20.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl.
2). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of
that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of
habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally,
“the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive
detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest.” Hamdi, 542
U.S. at 536 (quoting I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001)). Accordingly, challenges
to immigration-related detention are within the purview of a district court’s habeas
jurisdiction. 	Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001) (“Section 2441 habeas
proceedings are available as a forum for statutory and constitutional challenges to post-
removal-period detention.”); see also Lopez-Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759 (9th Cir.
2020) (“[D]istrict courts retain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider habeas
challenges to immigration detention that are sufficiently independent of the merits of [a]
removal order.”).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the
Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pet. at 4–8. Respondents contend there is no due
process violation because Petitioner is detained pursuant to § 1225(b)(1), which mandates
detention through the conclusion of the removal process. Ret. at 3–10.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be
“deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V.
“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles [noncitizens] to due process of
Case 3:26-cv-01004-LL-MSB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 9

4
26cv1004-LL-MSB
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
law in deportation proceedings.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003) (citing Reno v.
Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993)). “At the same time, however, this Court has recognized
detention 	during 	deportation 	proceedings 	as 	a 	constitutionally 	valid 	aspect 	of 	the
deportation process.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has questioned the constitutionality of certain
immigration detention statutes, including § 1225(b):
We have grave doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged
detention without any process is constitutional or that those who founded our
democracy precisely to protect against the government’s arbitrary deprivation
of liberty would have thought so. Arbitrary civil detention is not a feature of
our American government. “[L]iberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial
or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” United States v. Salerno,
481 U.S. 739, 755, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). Civil detention
violates due process outside of “certain special and narrow nonpunitive
circumstances.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 150
L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 256–57 (9th Cir. 2018) (alteration in original).
The Court agrees with those courts that have found a noncitizen detained under
§ 1225(b) for a prolonged period without an individualized bond hearing may assert a
constitutional right to due process. See Sadeqi v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2587-RSH-BJW,
2025 WL 3154520, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025) (“This Court agrees with the majority
position that a petitioner detained under Section 1225(b)(1) may assert a due process
challenge to prolonged mandatory detention without a bond hearing.”); Maksin v. Warden,
Golden State Annex, No. 1:25-CV-00955-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2879328, at *3 (E.D. Cal.
Oct. 9, 2025) (“Several courts including the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuit, as well as
numerous district courts, have found that unreasonably long detention periods may violate
the due process clause.” (collecting cases)); Abdul-Samed v. Warden of Golden State Annex
Det. 	Facility, No. 1:25-CV-00098-SAB-HC, 2025 	WL 	2099343, at 	*6 	(E.D. 	Cal.
July 25, 2025) (“[E]ssentially all district courts that have considered the issue agree that
prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing,
‘will—at some point—violate the right to due process.’” (quoting Martinez v. Clark,
No. C18-1669-RAJ-MAT, 2019 WL 5968089, at *6 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2019), report
Case 3:26-cv-01004-LL-MSB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 9

5
26cv1004-LL-MSB
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
and recommendation adopted, No. 18-CV-01669-RAJ, 2019 WL 5962685 (W.D. Wash.
Nov. 13, 2019))); 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.”); Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1116–17 (W.D. Wash.
2019).
Respondents rely on two cases to support their argument that § 1225(b)(1) and its
provision for mandatory detention provides all the process that Petitioner is due. Ret. at 5–
8 (citing Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (2020), and Shaughnessy
v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953)). However, the Court is not persuaded.
In Thuraissigiam, the habeas petitioner argued that the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 violated “his right to due process by precluding
judicial review of his allegedly flawed credible-fear proceeding.” Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S.
at 138. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner, as an applicant for admission, was
provided “the right to a determination whether he had a significant possibility of
establishing eligibility for asylum” pursuant to § 1225(b), and that he had “only those rights
regarding admission that Congress has provided by statute.” Id. at 140 (internal quotation
marks 	and 	brackets 	omitted) 	(quoting 	§§ 	1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), 	(v)). 	The 	Court 	finds
Thuraissigiam addressed a noncitizen’s right to challenge admission, not detention. See,
e.g., Sadeqi, 2025 WL 3154520, at *2 (“This Court likewise agrees with those district
courts that interpret Thuraissigiam as circumscribing an arriving [noncitizen’s] due process
rights to admission, rather than limiting that person’s ability to challenge detention.”);
Aviles-Mena v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06783-RFL, 2025 WL 2578215, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
5, 2025) (finding Thuraissigiam inapplicable to cases challenging detention).
The Court finds that Mezei is also distinguishable. Mezei involved a noncitizen who
had been “permanently excluded from the United States on security grounds but stranded
in his temporary haven on Ellis Island because other countries [would] not take him back.”
Mezei, 345 U.S. at 207. The Supreme Court recognized Mezei’s exclusion for security
Case 3:26-cv-01004-LL-MSB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 9

6
26cv1004-LL-MSB
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
reasons as different from noncitizens who may be released from detention on bond. Id. at
216 (“An exclusion proceeding grounded on danger to the national security, however,
presents different considerations; neither the rationale nor the statutory authority for such
release exists.”). The facts are significantly different because Petitioner has not been
excluded as a security risk, does not have a final order of removal, and received a positive
finding pursuant to the CAT. See Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 413–14 (6th
Cir. 	2003) 	(“[T]he 	Mezei 	Court 	explicitly 	grounded 	its 	decision 	in 	the 	special
circumstances of a national emergency and the determination by the Attorney General that
Mezei presented a threat to national security.”); Kydyrali, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 772 (finding
Mezei inapposite to issue of whether prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates
due process).
Respondents argue that applying the three-factor balancing test articulated in Lopez
v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022) demonstrates that Petitioner’s
detention is not unconstitutional at this stage. Ret. at 9–10. Petitioner contends that
applying the balancing test articulated in either Lopez or Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp.
3d 1099, 1106 (W.D. Wash. 2019), shows that his detention violates his due process rights.
Pet. at 8–11; Traverse at 7–8.
Courts in the Ninth Circuit have used various factor tests to determine whether due
process requires a bond hearing in immigration detention cases, including the Banda and
Lopez tests. In Banda, the court considered the following factors to determine whether
prolonged mandatory detention under § 1225(b) in a particular case violates the Due
Process Clause: “(1) the total length of detention to date; (2) the likely duration of future
detention; (3) the 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.” Banda, 385
F. Supp. 3d at 1118 (quoting Jamal A. v. Whitaker, 358 F. Supp. 3d 853, 858–59 (D. Minn.
2019)). Similarly, in Lopez, the court considered the first, second, fourth, and fifth Banda
factors for its analysis. See Lopez, 631 F. Supp. 3d at 879 (“the Court will look to the total
Case 3:26-cv-01004-LL-MSB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
6 of 9

7
26cv1004-LL-MSB
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
length of detention to date, the likely duration of future detention, and the delays in the
removal proceeding caused by the petitioner and the government.”) Therefore, this Court
will apply the Banda factors.
The Court first considers the length of detention. The total length of detention is
considered the most important factor. Banda, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1118. To date, Petitioner
has been in detention for over nine months. Shahrani Decl. ¶ 6. “Courts have found that
detention over seven months without a bond hearing weighs toward a finding that it is
unreasonable.” Amando v. United States Dep’t of Just., No. 25CV2687-LL-DDL, 2025 WL
3079052, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025) (collecting cases). Therefore, the Court finds the
length of detention weighs in favor of Petitioner.
Next, the Court considers the likely duration of future detention. Petitioner’s
individual merits hearing is scheduled for April 1, 2026. Ret. at 2. At this hearing, if
Petitioner is awarded asylum and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) does not
appeal, he will be released. However, in any other scenario—such as if DHS appeals or if
Petitioner is granted withholding but not asylum—he is likely to be detained for months, if
not years. See, e.g., Guarin v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-03085-DMS-VET, 2025 WL 3440689,
at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2025) (withholding of removal granted May 22, 2025 and petitioner
filed habeas petition for prolonged detention almost six months later); C.M.S. v. Oddo, No.
3:25-CV-00216, 2025 WL 3442697, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 1, 2025) (petitioner detained for
more than ten months after a final order of removal with withholding granted and only
released upon writ of habeas corpus); Maksim v. Annex, No. 1:25-CV-00955-SKO (HC),
2025 WL 2879328, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025) (finding determination of asylum
application and subsequent appeal could take a substantial amount of time). Therefore, the
Court finds this factor weighs in favor of Petitioner.
Case 3:26-cv-01004-LL-MSB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
7 of 9

8
26cv1004-LL-MSB
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
In considering the conditions of detention, “[t]he more that the conditions under
which the [noncitizen] is being held resemble penal confinement, the stronger his argument
that he is entitled to a bond hearing.” Banda, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1119 (second alteration
in original) (citation omitted). Petitioner is detained at OMDC, and courts have found
confinement at OMDC is “indistinguishable from penal confinement” as it is “a private,
for-profit detention center operated by CoreCivic, Inc., which also runs many state
penitentiaries.” Kydyrali, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 773. The Court finds this factor weighs in
favor of Petitioner.
The fourth and fifth factors concern delays in the removal proceedings caused by
Petitioner or the Respondents. Respondents argue that “Petitioner delayed the proceedings
for four months from August until November 20, 2025.” Ret. at 2. However, Petitioner
explains that he needed this time to gather necessary evidence for his asylum application.
Traverse at 8. Instead, Petitioner argues that it was Respondents who unduly delayed
Petitioner’s proceedings. Pet. at 10; Traverse at 8. For example, even though Petitioner was
detained on June 6, 2025, he was not interviewed or given his Notice to Appear until nearly
two months later. Traverse at 8. Petitioner was then inexplicably transferred to Arizona for
a month. Shahrani Decl. ¶ 8. The merits hearing that was scheduled for March 5, 2026 was
delayed by another month because Respondents failed to have an interpreter available,
while knowing full well Petitioner needed one. Traverse at 8. The Court finds this delay
factor is slightly in favor of Petitioner.
In considering the “likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final order
of removal,” the Court considers “whether the noncitizen has asserted any defenses to
removal.” Banda, 385 F. Supp. at 1120 (citations omitted). “[W]here a noncitizen has
asserted a good faith challenge to removal, ‘the categorical nature of the detention will
become increasingly unreasonable.’” Id. (citing Sajous v. Decker, No. 18-CV-2447 (AJN),
2018 WL 2357266, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2018)). Here, an asylum officer made a
positive finding pursuant to CAT. Ret. at 2. The Court finds this delay factor is slightly in
favor of Petitioner.
Case 3:26-cv-01004-LL-MSB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
8 of 9

9
26cv1004-LL-MSB
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
Considering all the factors, the Court finds Petitioner’s mandatory detention under
§ 1225(b) has become unreasonable and that due process requires that he be provided with
a bond hearing. See Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 1144 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e
note that the discretionary parole system available to § 1225(b) detainees is not sufficient
to overcome the constitutional concerns raised by prolonged mandatory detention.”). At
the bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge, 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.” Gao v. LaRose, 805 F. Supp. 3d
1106, 1112 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (citations omitted); Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 786 (9th
Cir. 2024) (noting that due process requires “the government to prove dangerousness or
risk of flight by clear and convincing evidence” at a bond hearing for noncitizens subject
to prolonged detention (citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011)).
With all factors weighing in favor of Petitioner, the Court finds due process requires
that he be provided with a bond hearing. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Within seven days of this Order, Respondents are directed
to arrange an individualized bond hearing 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01004-LL-MSB Document 10 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
9 of 9