Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

- 1 - 26cv1617
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
FIRAT DASDEMIR,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-cv-01617-BAS-AHG
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1)
Petitioner Firat Dasdemir filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he was improperly detained after he had been released on parole
for four years. 	(ECF No. 1.) 	The Government files a Notice of Non-Opposition to
Petitioner’s request to be released on bond. 	(ECF No. 4.) 	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.
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
Case 3:26-cv-01617-BAS-AHG Document 5 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

- 2 - 26cv1617
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
(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). It
applies 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 Turkey, entered the United States on March 27, 2022, seeking
asylum. (ECF No. 1, at ¶¶ 1, 11.) The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) released
Petitioner on parole. 	(Id. ¶ 1.) 	Petitioner has been residing and working lawfully in the
United States since then. (Id. ¶ 3.) He is married to a U.S. citizen and raising a U.S. citizen
son. (Id. ¶ 10.) He has work authorization, a driver’s license, a Social Security card, and
is pending his asylum claim. (Id. ¶ 11.) Petitioner complied with all the conditions of his
release. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 9.) Nonetheless, on February 20, 2026, DHS re-detained Petitioner when
he was delivering a package through Uber to an individual on Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton. (Id. ¶ 3.) Petitioner was detained 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. ¶ 28.) Petitioner seeks immediate release or a bond hearing.
III. 	ANALYSIS
The Government files a Notice of Non-Opposition to Petitioner’s release on bond.
(ECF No. 4.) And this Court agrees that 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:
Case 3:26-cv-01617-BAS-AHG Document 5 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

- 3 - 26cv1617
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
[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))).
Because DHS released Petitioner upon finding he was not a flight risk or a danger
to the community in March 2022, and because there is no evidence that 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. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ:
The Court ORDERS that Petitioner Firat Dasdemir (A#240-558-375) be
released on the same terms and conditions as he was previously released in
March 2022.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 24, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-01617-BAS-AHG Document 5 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3