Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-1640-CAB-DDL
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
ERSIN TABAK,
Petitioner,
v.
SIXTO MARRERO, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-1640-CAB-DDL
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. No. 1]
Petitioner Ersin Tabak (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	[Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] 	Petitioner alleges he was
previously released from immigration detention on September 8, 2022. [Id. at 2.] Then,
on February 2, 2026, Petitioner was detained while walking on the street in Los Angeles,
California. [Id. at 2, 6.] Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner was previously released
from immigration but that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) “has since
canceled” his bond. [Doc. No. 4.]
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of a petitioner’s custody and seeks
to secure release from that illegal custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may
grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” The petitioner bears the burden of
Case 3:26-cv-01640-CAB-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-1640-CAB-DDL
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
demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-BJC-
BJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues that his detention without notice on February 2, 2026 violates the
Fifth Amendment. 	[Petition at 7–10.] 	Respondents’ position is that Petitioner is subject
to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). 	[Doc. No. 4 at 1–2.] 	However,
Respondents also acknowledge that this Court and others have repeatedly reached the
opposite conclusion under the same and/or similar facts and so “do[] not oppose the petition
and defer[] to the Court on the appropriate relief.” [Id. at 2.]
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be
“deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V.
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of
physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). This protection applies to noncitizens as it does to U.S. citizens.
See Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896) (“[E]ven aliens shall not . . . be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”).
“Courts have previously found that individuals released from immigration custody
on bond have a protectable liberty interest in remaining out of custody[.]” Valencia Zapata
v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-07492-RFL, 2025 WL 2578207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025)
(listing cases). Indeed, “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.” 	Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F.
Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2025) (cleaned up) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972)).
In Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (S.D. Cal. 2025), the government violated
a noncitizen parolee’s Fifth Amendment due process rights when the government revoked
his parole by sending a mass electronic notification one morning and arresting him later
that day at his immigration hearing. Id. at 1155, 1167. The Noori court thus held that he
Case 3:26-cv-01640-CAB-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-1640-CAB-DDL
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
had a “protectable expectation of his due process rights in his removal proceedings . . . and
was entitled to both notification of revocation and the reasoning for revocation, if not also
an opportunity to be heard and contest the determination.” Id. at 1165.
Here, Petitioner received even less due process than the Noori petitioner. Petitioner
received no notification or individualized reason as to why his parole was being revoked
before he was detained on February 2, 2026. Nor have Respondents explained, even after
the fact, what circumstances have changed to warrant Petitioner’s re-detention.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Ersin Tabak from custody under
the same conditions which existed immediately prior to Petitioner’s detention on February
2, 2026.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01640-CAB-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3