Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-CV-1329 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
LEI PENG,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, Department of
Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-CV-1329 JLS (SBC)
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND (2) DENYING AS
MOOT MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF INTERPRETER
(ECF Nos. 1, 2)
Presently before the Court are Petitioner Lei Peng’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1) and Motion for Appointment of
Interpreter (“Mot.,” ECF No. 2). Also before the Court is Respondents’ Return to Habeas
Petition and Notice of Non-Opposition (“Ret.,” ECF No. 5). 	Petitioner did not file a
Traverse. See generally Docket. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN
PART the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for
Appointment of Interpreter.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a citizen of China, 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 August 15, 2025. 	Pet. ¶ 3.
Case 3:26-cv-01329-JLS-SBC Document 7 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 5

2
26-CV-1329 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
Petitioner originally entered the United States on a B2 Visitor’s visa on December 26,
2023, and applied for asylum in 2024. 	Id. ¶ 1. He later obtained a 180-day work permit.
Id. On August 12, 2025, while driving around San Diego for work, Petitioner accidentally
drove into Mexico during rush hour. Id. ¶ 2. Immediately thereafter, Petitioner’s attorney
completed an I-131 and a request for parole to allow Petitioner to return to the United States
to pursue his asylum claim. 	Id. 	On August 15, 2025, Petitioner was apprehended at the
U.S.-Mexico border. 	Id. ¶ 3. 	Respondents charged Petitioner with entering the United
States 	without 	inspection 	and 	valid 	immigration 	documents 	and 	initiated 	removal
proceedings. Id. ¶¶ 5, 36. Petitioner was denied release by DHS and twice denied a bond
hearing on jurisdictional grounds by an Immigration Judge. Id. ¶¶ 6–7. Petitioner alleges
that his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the
Administrative Procedure Act. 	See generally id. 	Respondents do not oppose a bond
hearing for Petitioner in this matter. Ret. at 1.
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).
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-01329-JLS-SBC Document 7 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 5

3
26-CV-1329 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
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
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, and
Respondents do not oppose this relief. 	Ret. at 1. 	Petitioner’s length of detention, over
seven 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, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (finding
that eleven month detention without a bond hearing “absent meaningful rebuttal by
[r]espondents” was unreasonable and violated due process); Amado, 2025 WL 3079052, at
*5 (“Courts have found detention over seven months without a bond hearing weighs toward
a finding that it is unreasonable.”). The length of detention therefore favors Petitioner.
Case 3:26-cv-01329-JLS-SBC Document 7 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 5

4
26-CV-1329 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
As to the likely duration of future detention, the Court finds that the outcome of
Petitioner’s merits proceedings is unknown, and any appeals to follow may take several
years. See Guatam, 2026 WL 25846, at *5 (“[A] removal order may not become final until
after the appeals Petitioner could file, to both the Board of Immigration Appeals and Ninth
Circuit.”). 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.
I. 	Attorney’s Fees
Petitioner has requested costs and attorney’s fees in this action pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Pet. at 64. The EAJA provides in part:
A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within
thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court an
application for fees and other expenses which shows that the
party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award
under this subsection, and the amount sought, including an
itemized statement from any attorney . . . representing or
appearing in behalf of the party stating the actual time expended
and 	the 	rate 	at 	which 	fees 	and 	other 	expenses 	were
computed. The party shall also allege that the position of the
United States was not substantially justified. Whether or not the
position of the United States was substantially justified shall be
determined on the basis of the record . . . which is made in the
civil action for which fees and other expenses are sought.
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).
The Court will consider an application requesting reasonable fees and costs under
the EAJA that is filed within thirty days of the judgment.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART Petitioner’s Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Motion for
Appointment of Interpreter (ECF No. 2), and ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner
Case 3:26-cv-01329-JLS-SBC Document 7 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 5

5
26-CV-1329 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
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 10, 2026, informing the Court
of the outcome of the hearing.
Lastly, Petitioner’s attorney is directed to submit an attorney fee application and
corresponding billing records within thirty (30) days of this Order, and Respondents are
instructed to file any opposition within fourteen (14) days of Petitioner’s attorney fee
application.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01329-JLS-SBC Document 7 Filed 03/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
5 of 5