Samet v. Divver et al

1
3:26-cv-00360-RBM-MMP
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
ALMALI SAMET,
Petitioner,
v.
PATRICK DIVVER, Field Office Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, San
Diego Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00360-RBM-MMP
ORDER GRANTING AMENDED
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 5]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Almali Samet’s (“Petitioner”) First Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Amended Petition”).
(Doc. 5.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of the Republic of Turkiye. 	(Doc. 5 ¶ 20.) 	He entered the
United States on October 16, 2024, without admission or parole. (Id. ¶ 21.) On November
28, 2024, Petitioner filed an application for asylum. (Id. ¶ 22.) In or about January 2025,
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services issued Petitioner a notice stating that
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) records indicated that Petitioner’s asylum
application had been dismissed or terminated, and that he had been placed in expedited
removal proceedings. 	(Id.) 	DHS later vacated the expedited removal order and issued
Case 3:26-cv-00360-RBM-MMP Document 8 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:26-cv-00360-RBM-MMP
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
Petitioner a Notice to Appear, placing Petitioner in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a. (Id. ¶ 24.)
On January 21, 2026, Petitioner filed his initial Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
(Doc. 1.) The Court issued a briefing schedule and Order to Show Cause that same day.
(Doc. 2.) 	On January 27, 2026, Respondents filed their Return to Petition, arguing that
Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief because he was not a member of the Bond
Eligible Class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz.1 (Doc. 4.) On January 30, 2026, Petitioner
filed his Amended Petition. (Doc. 5.) The Court issued a revised briefing schedule shortly
thereafter. 	(Doc. 6.) 	On February 9, 2026, Respondents filed their Return to First
Amended Petition, conceding that Petitioner was in fact a member of the Bond Eligible
Class. 	(Doc. 7 at 2.) 	Petitioner was authorized to file an optional reply on or before
February 12, 2026 (see Doc. 6 at 2), but he did not file a reply.
II. 	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) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2).
“The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” 	Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues that his continued detention without a bond hearing violates the
Administrative Procedure Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and
1 Bautista v. Santacruz, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025).
Case 3:26-cv-00360-RBM-MMP Document 8 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:26-cv-00360-RBM-MMP
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
the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 	(Doc. 5 ¶¶ 34–73.) 	Respondents concede
that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to a bond hearing.
(Doc. 7 at 2.) Because the Parties agree that Petitioner is detained under § 1226 and entitled
to a bond hearing, the Court GRANTS the Amended Petition.
IV. 	CONCLUSION2
The Amended Petition (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within ten (10) days3 of the entry of this Order. 	At the bond hearing,
Respondents 	shall bear the burden 	of establishing, by 	clear and 	convincing
evidence,4 that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.
2. If the bond hearing is not conducted within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order,
Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody until it is determined that his
detention is warranted under § 1226(a).
2 The Court declines to address the Petition’s remaining grounds for relief.
3 Respondents ask that the Court, “considering heavy caseloads and staffing levels, . . .
provide the government 14 days from issuance to hold [a] bond hearing.” (Doc. 7 at 2 n.1.)
The Court declines to provide this extra time because “this backlog is likely the result of
Respondents’ own conduct in refusing to comply with Bautista’s final judgment.” 	See
Sosa Inzuna v. Warden of Adelanto Det. Facility, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2026 WL 233211, at
*3 n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2026) (and noting that “the current volume of habeas petitions . . . being
filed can be attributed to Respondents’ deliberate choice to continue defying the final
judgment entered in Bautista”).
4 See Sadeqi v. LaRose, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12,
2025) (“Petitioner is entitled to a prompt and individualized bond hearing, at which
Respondents must justify her continued detention by a showing of clear and convincing
evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.”)
(citing Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds
by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018) (explaining that “the substantial liberty
interest at stake” warranted placing the burden on the government to “prove by clear and
convincing evidence that [a noncitizen] is a flight risk or a danger to the community to
justify denial of bond”)).
Case 3:26-cv-00360-RBM-MMP Document 8 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:26-cv-00360-RBM-MMP
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
3. On or before March 2, 2026, Respondents shall file a status report indicating
whether and when Petitioner received a bond hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 13, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00360-RBM-MMP Document 8 Filed 02/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4