Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-1299-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
WENQIN ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden, Otay
Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1299-RSH-SBC
ORDER DENYING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF No. 2]
On March 2, 2026, petitioner Wenqin Zhang, represented by counsel, filed a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”), as well as a motion
for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. The merits of the petition are
now fully briefed. See ECF Nos. 5 (return), 6 (traverse).
Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Petitioner states that he entered the United States on December 24, 2014 on a valid
B1/B2 visa. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 14. Also in 2014, he applied for asylum. ECF No. 1-2 ¶ 3. He
Case 3:26-cv-01299-RSH-SBC Document 7 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
26-cv-1299-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
has been in the United States continuously since his entry. ECF No. 1 ¶ 14. On January 3,
2026, Petitioner was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and
taken into immigration custody. Id. ¶ 1. He is currently in custody at Otay Mesa Detention
Center in San Diego, California. Id. ¶ 5.
Petitioner’s claim is that his arrest on January 3, 2026 and subsequent detention
violate the due process clause because he was entitled to “a pre-deprivation hearing before
a neutral decision maker to determine whether circumstances have materially changed
since his arrival in the USA in December 2014, such that detention would now be warranted
on the basis that he is a danger or a flight risk by clear [and] convincing evidence.” Id. ¶
32. The Petition implies that at some point after he overstayed his B1/B2 visa but before
January 3, 2026, he was released pursuant to an order of release; he states that he seeks “a
routine hearing regarding whether his order of release should be revoked and whether he
should be re-incarcerated.” Id.¶ 51; see also id. ¶ 48 (describing the “process he seeks” as
“notice and a hearing regarding whether he has violated any conditions of his release”).
However, apart from such references, the Petition contains no allegations regarding
whether or when such release on conditions occurred. Indeed, there is no evidence in the
record that he was ever released on conditions. Petitioner’s declaration does not mention
conditional release at all, and also fails to address whether he received any process in
connection with his arrest on January 3, 2026. See generally ECF No. 1-2.1
If Petitioner’s claim is that he was previously released subject to an order of release,
and ICE unlawfully revoked that release, he has not established a factual basis for such a
claim. If Petitioner’s claim, instead, is that he is entitled by the due process clause to a pre-
deprivation hearing before he is arrested in the first instance for having overstayed his visa,
he offers no legal support for such a proposition. Petitioner maintains that ICE was required
to prove prior to arresting him that “circumstances have materially changed” since
1 No further clarity or evidence on this point is provided in Petitioner’s application for
a temporary restraining order or his traverse. See ECF Nos. 2, 6.
Case 3:26-cv-01299-RSH-SBC Document 7 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
26-cv-1299-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
Petitioner’s arrival in the United States in December 2014; but there is no dispute that
circumstances have changed since then—according to Petitioner, he entered on a valid
visa, and then overstayed that visa.
Finally, the Court notes that the Petition alleges, “[i]t would be futile for [Petitioner]
to seek a bond hearing from an Immigration Judge,” because such a “request would be
summarily denied based on the current interpretation of the BIA’s recent decisions in
Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025) and Matter of Yajure, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA
2025).” ECF No. 1 ¶ 12. However, records filed by Respondent reflect that on February
23, 2026—just over one week before Petitioner filed this action—Petitioner did receive a
bond hearing before an immigration judge, who did not summarily deny bond based on
BIA decisions; instead, the order recites that the immigration judge weighed the applicable
factors and determined that Petitioner was a flight risk. ECF No. 5-1. Petitioner’s motion
for a temporary restraining order argues that Petitioner is entitled to such a hearing—a
hearing that he had already received. See ECF No. 2 at 14 (“Alternatively, providing
[Petitioner] with a hearing before this Court (or a neutral decisionmaker) regarding release
from custody is a routine procedure that the government provides to those in immigration
detention 	facilities 	daily.”). 	The 	Petition 	did 	not 	disclose 	that 	he 	is 	seeking 	a
determination—namely, of whether he presents a flight risk—that has already been made.
Although Petitioner’s post-arrest bond hearing does not preclude him from arguing that he
was entitled to a pre-arrest revocation hearing, the Court expects Petitioner to support his
request for relief with a factual record that is complete and accurate to the best of counsel’s
ability, or to request additional time as needed to do so.
//
//
//
//
//
//
Case 3:26-cv-01299-RSH-SBC Document 7 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
26-cv-1299-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
Petitioner has not carried his burden to show that he is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States. Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED without
prejudice, and Petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order [ECF No. 2] is
likewise DENIED.
The Court VACATES the hearing date set for March 26, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-01299-RSH-SBC Document 7 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4