Li v. Noem et al

- 1 - 26cv0945
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
TONG LI,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-00945-BAS-DEB
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1)
Petitioner Tong Li filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, claiming she was improperly re-detained without notice. (ECF No. 1.) She requests
that she be released forthwith on the same conditions as she was previously released. (Id.)
She simultaneously filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) requesting
the same relief. (ECF No. 2.)
The 	Government 	responded 	to 	the 	Petition, 	agreeing 	with 	Petitioner 	and
acknowledging that “Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and [is] entitled to an
order from this Court directing a bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).”
Case 3:26-cv-00945-BAS-DEB Document 10 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

- 2 - 26cv0945
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
(ECF No. 8.) 	Petitioner filed a Traverse pointing out that no bond hearing is necessary
because Petitioner was already released prior to her illegal re-detention. (ECF No. 9.)
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Petition (ECF No. 1) and
orders that Petitioner be released forthwith on the same terms and conditions as she was
previously released. In light of this order, the Court finds the Motion for a TRO (ECF No.
2) is MOOT.
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
(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 she is seeking release from custody,
she has standing to pursue this Petition.
II. 	STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner, a citizen of China, entered the United States on June 6, 2024, seeking
asylum. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 16.) The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) released
Petitioner on her own recognizance with a Notice to Appear. 	(Id.) 	She was issued an
employment authorization document and a social security number. 	(Id. ¶ 18.) 	She has
attended all her court hearings and check-ins. (Id.)
On July 1, 2025, while attending a scheduled court hearing, DHS re-detained
Petitioner. (Id. ¶ 2.) She was not given notice or information as to why she was re-detained.
(Id. ¶ 21.) An Immigration Judge indicated he lacked jurisdiction to consider her for bond
pursuant to Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). (Id.) Petitioner
requests that she be released forthwith on the same terms and conditions as she was
previously released. (Id.)
Case 3:26-cv-00945-BAS-DEB Document 10 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

- 3 - 26cv0945
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
III. 	ANALYSIS
The Central District of California has certified a class and essentially overruled
Yajure Hurtado. Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 3713982
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). This Court has previously held in multiple cases that it agrees
with the Central District in Maldonado Bautista that an individual in Petitioner’s situation
is not subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225. 	See, e.g., Gregorio v. LaRose,
No. 25-cv-03322-BAS-BJW, 2025 WL 3653998 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); Zayas v.
Gordon, No. 26-cv-00237-BAS-DEB, 2026 WL 266275 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026); Trujillo
v. Noem, No. 26-cv-00268-BAS-VET, 2026 WL 266496 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2026). Hence,
for all of the reasons stated in these previous opinions, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
And because DHS already considered whether Petitioner was a flight risk or a danger to
the community and concluded she could be safely released, the Court finds no additional
bond hearing is necessary.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ:
The Court ORDERS that Tong Li (A# 226-089-650) be released from
immigration custody forthwith on the same terms and conditions as she was
previously released on June 8, 2024.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 2, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-00945-BAS-DEB Document 10 Filed 03/02/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3