Ghamoush-Ramandi v. Noem et al

1 26-cv-0952-AGS-DEB
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
Hamid GHAMOUSH-RAMANDI,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-0952-AGS-DEB
ORDER REQUIRING RETURN
Petitioner Hamid Ghamoushi seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
to free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that
is sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if
it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit
“summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114
F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential
merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id.
In April 2024, Ghamoushi, “a native and citizen of Iran,” entered the United States
“without authorization.” (ECF 1, at 3.) More than a year later, on “July 6, 2025,” he was
“arrested” by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Id.) Then, on
“November 10, 2025,” an immigration judge “granted his application for withholding of
removal to Iran,” but he is still in custody and asserts that his ongoing detention violates
his “due process” rights. (Id. at 3, 5.) Specifically, he asks this Court to order his release
because “there is no good reason to believe he will be deported to Iran in the reasonably
foreseeable future.” (Id. at 1.)
Case 3:26-cv-00952-AGS-DEB Document 3 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2 26-cv-0952-AGS-DEB
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
Thus far, he’s been held in post-final-removal-order custody for longer than the
90-day standard removal period but shorter than the presumptively reasonable 6-month
detention period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A) (“[W]hen an alien is ordered removed, the
Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of
90 days[.]”); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (discussing “6-month
presumption” of reasonable detention for § 1231(a)(6)). And some courts have granted
relief for petitioners in similar circumstances. See Munoz-Saucedo v. Pittman, 789 F. Supp.
3d 387, 395 (D.N.J. 2025) (collecting cases and holding that the Supreme Court’s
“six-month period of presumptively reasonable detention” does “not preclude a detainee
from challenging the reasonableness of his detention before such time”).
So, by February 23, 2026, the government must answer. Any reply by the petitioner
is due February 27, 2026, and the Court will hold a hearing on March 3, 2026, at
1:30 p.m.
Dated: February 17, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00952-AGS-DEB Document 3 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2