Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-00618-RBM-BJW
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
HAMED ASADIMOFARAH,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior-Warden,
Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00618-RBM-BJW
ORDER REQUIRING STATUS
REPORT
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Hamed Asadimofarah’s (“Petitioner”) Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). 	(Doc. 1.) 	Petitioner
claims that his continued detention without a bond hearing has become unreasonably
prolonged in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 	(Id. at 2, 6–7.)
Respondents argue that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s claims, and
that even if it did, Petitioner’s detention has not become unreasonably prolonged under the
relevant test. (See Doc. 4 at 4–10 (discussing factors under Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp.
3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022)).) The Court requires additional information to rule on the
issues raised in the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Iran who entered the United States on May 24, 2025.
Case 3:26-cv-00618-RBM-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-00618-RBM-BJW
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
(Doc. 4 at 2 (citing Doc. 4-2 at 2 [Form I-213].)1 That same day, Petitioner was determined
to be inadmissible 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. at 2 (citing
Doc. 4-2 at 3.) 	Petitioner was then issued a Notice to Appear, which initiated removal
proceedings against him under § 1229a. (Id. (citing Doc. 4-2 at 6 [Notice to Appear])) As
of February 12, 2026, “Petitioner’s removal proceedings remain[ed] pending, and his
individual merits hearing [was] scheduled for March 13, 2026.” (Doc. 4 at 2.)
B. 	Procedural Background
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the Petition on January 30, 2026. 	(Doc. 1.)
Shortly thereafter, the Court set a briefing schedule. 	(Doc. 3.) 	Respondents filed their
Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on February 12, 2026. (Doc. 4.) 	Petitioner
was authorized to file a reply on or before February 27, 2026, but did not file one.
II. 	DISCUSSION
First, 	the 	Court 	has 	consistently 	rejected 	Respondents’ 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1252(g)
jurisdictional argument, see Constantinovici v. Bondi, 806 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1161–62 (S.D.
Cal. 2025), and does so again here for the same reasons. Petitioner challenges violations
of ICE’s duties under the Constitution. 	He is thus enforcing his “constitutional rights to
due process in the context of the removal proceedings—not the legitimacy of the removal
proceedings or any removal order.” 	Garcia v. Noem, 803 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1074 (S.D.
Cal. 2025) (emphasis in original).
Second, the Court requires additional information to rule on the Petition. Although
Respondents argue that, if the Court should reach the issue of prolonged detention, it should
apply the Lopez factors, Lopez concerned a petitioner detained under § 1226. 	See Lopez,
631 F. Supp. 3d at 879 (“To determine whether § 1226(c) detention has become
unreasonable . . . .”). 	Therefore, the Court applies the six-factor balancing test used by
1 The Court cites the CM/ECF electronic pagination for filings unless otherwise noted.
Case 3:26-cv-00618-RBM-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-00618-RBM-BJW
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
courts analyzing prolonged detention under § 1225(b). See Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp.
3d 768, 773 (S.D. Cal. 2020). 	Under this test, which shares significant overlap with the
Lopez factors, the Court considers:
(1) the total length of detention to date; (2) the likely duration of future
detention; (3) conditions of detention; (4) delays in the removal proceedings
caused by the detainee; (5) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the
government; and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in
a final order of removal.
Gao v. LaRose, 805 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1111 (S.D. Cal. 2025).
The Court lacks sufficient information regarding the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth
factors because, in the time since the Petition became fully briefed, Petitioner had a
scheduled merits hearing. 	(See Doc. 4 at 2 (noting Petitioner’s merits hearing was
scheduled for March 12, 2026).) 	Respondents argue that Petitioner’s “path to release or
removal should be clear” after this merits hearing. (Doc. 4 at 9.)
III. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Court ORDERS Respondents to FILE a supplemental status report
on or before March 30, 2026. 	The status report shall indicate: (1) whether Petitioner’s
merits hearing occurred on March 12, 2026 and, if so, the outcome of that hearing; (2) if it
did not, when the merits hearing was rescheduled and why it was rescheduled; (3) whether
there are further hearings scheduled; (4) whether Petitioner has appealed, or may appeal,
the outcome of any of these hearings; and (5) anything else relevant to the Court’s
consideration of the Kydyrali factors.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 20, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00618-RBM-BJW Document 5 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3