Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-0836-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
HUSSAIN MUBASHAR,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-0836-CAB-DDL
ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Before the Court is Petitioner Hussain Mubashar’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] Petitioner, proceeding pro
se, claims he is being detained by immigration authorities in violation of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [Id. at 4–5.] He seeks immediate release or, at minimum,
a bond hearing. [Id. at 4, 5, 7.] For the reasons below, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS
the request for a writ of habeas corpus and 	ORDERS 	that Petitioner receive an
individualized bond hearing.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan who entered the United States near San Ysidro,
California on December 13, 2024. 	[Doc. No. 4 at 1.] 	He was determined to be an
inadmissible arriving alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and taken into Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). [Id.] He was
Case 3:26-cv-00836-CAB-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:26-cv-0836-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
then issued a Notice to Appear, which initiated removal proceedings. [Id.] On September
16, 2025 Petitioner had an individual merits hearing in front of an immigration dudge
(“IJ”), who denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal under both the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 241(b)(3) and the Convention Against Torture,
as well as his deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. [Id. at 2.] The IJ
ordered his removal to Pakistan and Petitioner appealed. [Id.] As his appeal is pending,
there is no final order of removal. [Id.]
II. 	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
demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. 	See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-
BJCBJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing—over fifteen
months—violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process. 	[Doc. No. 1-3 at 2.]
Respondents counter that the relevant statutory language of § 1225(b)(2) and Supreme
Court precedent require Petitioner’s detention until his removal proceedings are resolved.
[Doc. No. 4 at 4–9.] 	The Court has previously discussed that while Supreme Court
precedent does establish that the statutory language of § 1225(b) mandates detention, the
Supreme Court has not decided the constitutional question of whether indefinite detention
is permitted. L.R.G. v. LaRose, 3:25-CV-3490-CAB-MSB, Doc. No. 13, at *5–6 (S.D. Cal.
Jan. 16, 2026).
As to that constitutional question, this Court recently held in L.R.G. that a due
process violation may occur when § 1225(b) results in practically indefinite civil detention.
3:25-CV-3490-CAB-MSB, Doc. No. 13, at *6; see Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F.Supp.3d 768,
772 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across the country in
Case 3:26-cv-00836-CAB-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:26-cv-0836-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
concluding that an unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an
individualized bond hearing violates due process.”). Respondents’ position has also been
questioned by the Ninth Circuit:
We have grave doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged
detention without any process is constitutional or that those who founded our
democracy precisely to protect against the government’s arbitrary deprivation
of liberty would have thought so. Arbitrary civil detention is not a feature of
our American government. “[L]iberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial
or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” 	Civil detention violates
due 	process 	outside 	of 	“certain 	special 	and 	narrow 	nonpunitive
circumstances.”
Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 256–57 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal citation omitted)
(alteration in original).
Though there is no brightline test for a violation, this Court and many others have
used the Banda test which considers the following six factors to determine when detention
under § 1225(b) violates due process: (1) the total length of detention to date, which is the
most important factor; (2) the likely duration of future detention; (3) the conditions of
detention; (4) delays in removal proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) delays in removal
proceedings caused by the government; and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings
will result in a final order of removal. 	Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F.Supp.3d 1099, 1106
(W.D. Wash. 2019).
The first factor weighs in Petitioner’s favor given he has been detained for over a
year. See Sibomana v. LaRose, No. 22-CV-933-LL-NLS, 2023 WL 3028093, at *4 (S.D.
Cal. Apr. 20, 2023) (finding that courts are typically wary of continued custody without a
bond hearing when detention extends beyond one year). 	Regarding the second factor,
which 	consists 	of 	“the anticipated 	duration 	of 	all 	removal 	proceedings—including
administrative and judicial appeals[,]” Petitioner submitted his appeal on October 22, 2025
and it is unclear whether it will be adjudicated soon. 	[Doc. No. 4 at 2]; Banda, 385
F.Supp.3d at 1119. Accordingly, the second factor favors Petitioner. As to the third Banda
factor, “[t]he more that the conditions under which the [noncitizen] is being held resemble
Case 3:26-cv-00836-CAB-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:26-cv-0836-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
penal confinement, the stronger his argument that he is entitled to a bond hearing.” 	Id.
(second alteration in original). 	Petitioner’s confinement is similar to penal confinement
because, as the Court explained with respect to the petitioner in L.R.G., who was also
detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center, Petitioner is detained “in a secure facility, guarded
by 	armed 	personnel, 	and 	has 	restricted 	access 	to 	outdoor 	space, 	activities, 	and
communication.” 	No. 3:25-CV-3490-CAB-MSB, Doc. No. 13, at *8. 	Thus, the third
factor favors Petitioner.
Regarding the fourth factor, there is no evidence in the record that Petitioner caused
any delays and therefore, this factor weighs in his favor. The fifth factor weighs against
Petitioner as he does not allege that the government has caused any delays. 	Finally, the
sixth factor is neutral as it is unclear what the result of Petitioner’s removal proceedings
will be.
In sum, factors one (the most important), two, three, and four weigh for Petitioner,
while factor five weighs against him, and factor six remains neutral. 	With four factors,
including the most important factor, in his favor, and only one factor against him, the Court
concludes that Petitioner’s continued mandatory detention without a bond hearing violates
his right to due process. Petitioner is entitled to an individualized bond hearing before an
immigration judge.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Petitioner's prolonged detention without
a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 	The Court
therefore PARTIALLY GRANTS the writ of habeas corpus and ORDERS Respondents
to provide Petitioner an individualized bond hearing by March 23, 2026. 	Respondents
shall update the Court on the result of the bond hearing by March 24, 2026.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00836-CAB-DDL Document 5 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4