Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-cv-1555-BJC-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
MEIRAMBEK SEIDULLA,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1555-BJC-MSB
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
On March 12, 2026, Petitioner Meirambek Seidulla filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241. 	ECF No. 1. 	Petitioner is 25-year-old native
and citizen of Kazakhstan. Id. ¶ 8. 	Petitioner first entered the United States on or about
September 15, 2024 without inspection near Tecate, California. 	He entered the United
States to seek protection from the Kazakh government, which persecuted him for
participating in anti-government demonstrations. 	Petitioner has filed a Form I-589
Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. On November 14, 2024, ICE
released Petitioner on an Order of Release on Recognizance. 	Petitioner has attended all
scheduled appointments with ICE and has no criminal history.
ICE summarily revoked Petitioner’s release and re-detained him without advance
notice or any opportunity to contest the revocation before re-detention. Petitioner has been
Case 3:26-cv-01555-BJC-MSB Document 6 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-1555-BJC-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
detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since his arrest.
Petitioner requests that the Court grant the petition and order his immediate release
from ICE custody on his own recognizance under the previously imposed conditions. In
the alternative, Petitioner requests an individualized bond hearing within 5 days in which
the government shall bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a flight risk.
The Court set a briefing schedule on March 12, 2026. 	ECF No. 3. 	Respondents
filed a response on March 19, 2026. ECF No. 5.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Courts may grant habeas corpus relief to those “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241; see also Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525, 124 S. Ct. 2633, 2644, 159 L. Ed. 2d 578 (2004) (“[T]he writ
of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States.”).
Courts are authorized to grant writs pursuant to § 2241 to noncitizens in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 	Magana-Pizano v.
I.N.S., 200 F.3d 603, 609 (9th Cir. 1999).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 	ECF Nos. 1 at 10-11
Respondents do not address Petitioner’s due process arguments. Instead, Respondents state
that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) but acknowledge that
this Court has repeatedly reached the opposite conclusion under the same or similar facts.
ECF No. 5 at 1.
Petitioner was entitled to due process, including written notice, the reasons for the
termination, and an opportunity to contest the determination, prior to termination of his
parole. 	Noori v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-1824-GPC-MSB, 2025 WL 2800149, at *11 (S.D.
Cal. Oct. 1, 2025). 	Petitioner contends, and Respondents do not dispute, that Petitioner
was provided no individualized determination, and no opportunity to be heard before he
Case 3:26-cv-01555-BJC-MSB Document 6 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-1555-BJC-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
was detained. The Court finds Petitioner’s revocation of his release and detention violates
his due process rights.
III. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, the Court 	GRANTS 	the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner on his own recognizance under the
previously imposed conditions. 	Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner
without complying with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process. The Clerk of Court shall close
this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01555-BJC-MSB Document 6 Filed 03/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3