Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26cv1421-LL-BLM
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
Jiaxing XIE,
Petitioner,
v.
Christopher J. LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26cv1421-LL-BLM
ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE
TO PETITION AND SETTING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Petitioner Jiaxing is a detainee in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On March 5, 2026, he filed a Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner entered
the United States without inspection on January 8, 2025. Pet. ¶ 16. Upon arrival, Petitioner
informed the border patrol that he feared returning to China. Id. He was ultimately
transferred to Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. On February 20, 2025, an immigration
judge (“IJ”) found him to be credible and made a positive determination of credible fear of
persecution in China. Id. ¶ 17. On November 10, 2025, the IJ granted DHS’s motion to
pretermit, denied all forms of relief, and ordered Petitioner be removed to China. Id. ¶ 19.
Petitioner timely filed his appeal on November 26, 2025. Id. Petitioner alleges that his
prolonged detention violated his due process right under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
Case 3:26-cv-01421-LL-BLM Document 2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26cv1421-LL-BLM
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
(2001). Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to, inter alia,
immediately release him from custody. Id. at 12.
Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted
at this time. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary
dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague [or]
conclusory’ or ‘palpably incredible’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” (citations omitted)).
Additionally, the Court finds it necessary to order a limited stay pursuant to the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status quo until the Court can provide a
reasoned decision, in order to avoid any potential jurisdictional problems if Petitioner is
removed from this district.1 See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL
2300543, at *1 & n.1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their
authority under the All Writs Act to maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration
matters by preserving the status quo.” (collecting cases)).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following:
1. 	Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should
not be granted by filing a written Return on or before March 13, 2026. The Return shall
include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and
shall address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is needed. Respondents shall
serve a copy of its Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing.
2. 	Petitioner may reply to the Return by filing a Traverse on or before March
18, 2026.
3. 	After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission
and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are
notified otherwise.
1 Under the All Writs Act, “all courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs
necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages
and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
Case 3:26-cv-01421-LL-BLM Document 2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26cv1421-LL-BLM
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
4. 	Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons
acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing
Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court,
to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision.
5. 	The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF
No. 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01421-LL-BLM Document 2 Filed 03/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3