Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

- 1 - 26cv1142
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
CHYNGYZ ZHUNUEV,
Petitioner,
v.
SIDNEY AKI, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-01142-BAS-MMP
ORDER GRANTING AMENDED
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS (ECF No. 5)
Petitioner Chyngyz Zhunuev filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
claiming he was improperly re-detained in immigration custody after being released almost
three years ago. 	(ECF No. 1.) 	He simultaneously filed a Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) seeking release from immigration custody. (ECF No. 2.) The
Court denied the TRO to the extent it requested ex parte relief and ordered a response,
giving the parties notice that it would consolidate any Motion for Injunctive Relief with a
determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). (ECF No. 3.)
Petitioner then filed an Amended Petition (ECF No. 5) and an Amended Motion for
a TRO (ECF No. 6). 	The Government filed a Response to the Amended Petition,
Case 3:26-cv-01142-BAS-MMP Document 8 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

- 2 - 26cv1142
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
suggesting that Petitioner is a member of the class certified in Maldonado Bautista v.
Santacruz, __ F. Supp. 3d___, 2025 WL 3713982 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). (ECF No. 7.)
As such, the Government indicates “Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and
[is] entitled to an order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a).” (ECF No. 7.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the
Petition and orders that Petitioner be released on the same terms and conditions as he was
previously released. In light of this ruling, the Court finds the Motions for a TRO (ECF
Nos. 2, 6) are both moot.
I. 	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). 	“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 he or
she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
The writ is available to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody, and since he is seeking release
from custody, he has standing to pursue this Petition.
II. 	STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner, a citizen of Kyrgyzstan, entered the United States on May 25, 2023, using
the CBP One app seeking asylum. 	(ECF No. 5, ¶¶ 2, 4.) 	He was immediately released
after Border Patrol determined he was not a flight risk or danger to the community.
(Id. ¶ 22.) He was given work authorization and has been employed as a commercial truck
driver. (Id. ¶ 24.) On February 16, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)
re-detained Petitioner without notice or an opportunity to be heard and without any changed
circumstances with respect to his flight risk or danger to the community. 	(Id. ¶ 5.)
Petitioner seeks immediate release or a bond hearing.
Case 3:26-cv-01142-BAS-MMP Document 8 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

- 3 - 26cv1142
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
III. 	ANALYSIS
Although the Government seems to agree that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing,
it bases its concession on its belief that Petitioner is part of the class certified in Maldonado
Bautista v. Santacruz, __ F. Supp. 3d___, 2025 WL 3713982 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025).
(ECF No. 7.) 	However, the Maldonado Bautista class applied only to individuals who
entered without inspection and were not apprehended upon arrival. 	Id. 	Petitioner was
apprehended at the border upon arrival, so he does not appear to be part of the Maldonado
Bautista class.1 Nonetheless, this Court finds Petitioner’s re-detention without notice or
an opportunity to be heard and without noticeably changed circumstances violates
Petitioner’s due process rights.
Individuals released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a
liberty interest in continued liberty. 	See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482
(1972) (parolees); Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v.
Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). 	Thus, this Court agrees with those
courts that have held:
[O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from
rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather,
the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed
circumstances—namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or
has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. And if
the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his
rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge.
Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176–77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet
v. Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026)
(“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the
government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody
creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be
revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting
Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))).
Case 3:26-cv-01142-BAS-MMP Document 8 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

- 4 - 26cv1142
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
Because DHS released Petitioner upon finding he was not a flight risk or a danger
to the community in May 2023, and because there is no evidence those circumstances have
changed, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same conditions as he was initially
released. 	If DHS believes circumstances have changed, it must provide notice of these
changed circumstances to Petitioner and provide Petitioner an opportunity to be heard
promptly before an Immigration Judge.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner Chyngyz Zhunuev’s Amended Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. 	(ECF No. 5.) Accordingly, the Court issues the
following writ:
The Court ORDERS Chyngyz Zhunuev (A# 244-059-805) be released on the
same terms and conditions as he was ordered released in May 2023.
In light of this order, the Court DENIES the Motions for a TRO as moot. (ECF Nos.
2, 6.) The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 10, 2026
1 The Court notes additionally that the Maldonado Bautista class has been limited to the Central
District of California and stayed with respect to all other potential class members. Maldonado Bautista v.
U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). Hence, Petitioner is not a member of
this class as he is located in the Southern District of California.
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-01142-BAS-MMP Document 8 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4