Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26-CV-914 JLS (JLB)
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
TARIG AU ABDALLA YAGOUB,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden Otay
Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-CV-914 JLS (JLB)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 7)
Presently before the Court is Tarig Au Abdalla Yagoub’s Amended Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 7). Also before the
Court is Respondents’ Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Ret.,” ECF No. 9)
and Petitioner’s Traverse (ECF No. 10). 	For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a citizen of Sudan, alleges that he has been detained by the United States
Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) division at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since July 12, 2025, when he entered
the United States. 	Pet. at 2. 	Petitioner fled Sudan because of the ongoing civil war and
violence against his family. Id. Petitioner sought asylum at the San Ysidro Port of Entry
Case 3:26-cv-00914-JLS-JLB Document 11 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
26-CV-914 JLS (JLB)
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
on July 12, 2025. Id. Petitioner received a positive credible fear determination, Ret. at 2,
and has applied for asylum, Pet. at 3. 	Petitioner has had five court appearances in his
immigration case so far, the last being on November 19, 2025, and the next currently
scheduled for May 27, 2026. Id.
LEGAL STANDARD
A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the
legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of
his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial
body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the
court of appeals. 	See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales,
418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat.
231, § 106(a)). 	However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising
independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention—
federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. 	Nadarajah v. Gonzales,
443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez,
138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal.
2018) (citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
I. 	Jurisdiction
Respondents argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g)
because Petitioner’s claim arises from the decision to commence removal proceedings.
Ret. at 3–4. The Court disagrees.
Section 1252(g) provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or
claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney
General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any
alien under this chapter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Section 1252(g) should be read “narrowly”
as to apply “only to three discrete actions that the Attorney General may take: her ‘decision
or action’ to ‘commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.’”
Case 3:26-cv-00914-JLS-JLB Document 11 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
26-CV-914 JLS (JLB)
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
Ibarra-Perez v. United States, No. 24-631, 2025 WL 2461663, at *6 (9th Cir. Aug. 27,
2025) (quoting Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 482,
487 (1999)). Section 1252(g) “does not prohibit challenges to unlawful practices merely
because they are in some fashion connected to removal orders.” Id. at *7. Section 1252(g)
does not bar due process claims. Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1052–53 (9th Cir. 1998)
(finding that the petitioners’ objective was not to review the merits of their proceeding, but
rather “to enforce their constitutional rights to due process in the context of those
proceedings”).
Here, Petitioner does not challenge the decision to commence removal proceedings
or any act to adjudicate or execute a removal order. Rather, Petitioner is challenging his
prolonged detention without a bond hearing. Traverse at 2–3. 	Petitioner is 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, No. 25-
CV-2180-DMS-MMP, 2025 WL 2549431, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025). 	Therefore,
§ 1252(g) does not strip the Court of jurisdiction.
II. 	Merits
“Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court have provided guidance regarding
the point at which an immigration detainee’s prolonged mandatory detention becomes
unconstitutional.” Amado v. United States Dep’t of Just., No. 25CV2687-LL(DDL), 2025
WL 3079052, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). 	However, “[n]early all district courts that
have considered [the constitutionality of prolonged mandatory detention] agree that
prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing,
will—at some point—violate the right to due process.” 	Singh v. Barr, 400 F. Supp. 3d
1005 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (cleaned up)
(collecting cases). 	In determining whether detention has become unreasonable, courts
evaluate factors including “the total length of detention to date, the likely duration of future
detention, and the delays in the removal proceedings caused by the petitioner and the
government.” Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022). Some courts
Case 3:26-cv-00914-JLS-JLB Document 11 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
26-CV-914 JLS (JLB)
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
also consider the conditions of detention and the likelihood that the removal proceedings
will result in a final order of removal. See, e.g., Sadeqi v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2587-RSH-
BJW, 2025 WL 3154520, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025).
The Court finds that Petitioner has established he is entitled to a bond hearing.
Petitioner’s length of detention, nearly eight months, without a bond hearing weighs in
Petitioner’s favor. Courts have found detention of similar lengths without a bond hearing
weighs towards a finding that detention has become unreasonable. 	See, e.g., Guatam v.
Corr. Corp of Am., No. 3:25-CV-3600-JES-DEB, 2026 WL 25846, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5,
2026) (finding that one-year detention weighed in favor of granting a bond hearing);
Sadeqi, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (finding that eleven month detention without a bond
hearing “absent meaningful rebuttal by [r]espondents” was unreasonable and violated due
process); Amado, 2025 WL 3079052, at *5 (“Courts have found detention over seven
months without a bond hearing weighs toward a finding that it is unreasonable.”). 	The
length of detention therefore favors Petitioner.
As to the likely duration of future detention, Petitioner argues that he “has reason to
anticipate significant future detention” since his merits hearing is not for another three
months, at which point his asylum petition will be decided, subject to an appeal process
that could go on for another undetermined amount of time. Pet. at 8–9. 	The Court agrees,
since Respondents “cannot predict with any degree of confidence when the BIA appeal
will be resolved.” 	Masood v. Barr, No. 19-CV-07623-JD, 2020 WL 95633, at *3 (N.D.
Cal. Jan. 8, 2020). 	Respondents argue only that Petitioner’s final merits hearing is
scheduled for May 27, 2026, and that Respondents have not delayed removal proceedings.
Ret. at 9. Therefore, the likely duration of future detention weighs in Petitioner’s favor.
Delay in removal proceedings is neutral since the record does not suggest delay by
Respondents nor Petitioner. 	See generally Pet.; Ret. Balancing the discussed factors, the
Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged, and
therefore, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing.
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-00914-JLS-JLB Document 11 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
26-CV-914 JLS (JLB)
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
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART1 Petitioner’s Amended
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 7), and ORDERS Respondents to provide
Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within fourteen (14) days before a neutral
immigration judge in which the government bears the burden of establishing by clear and
convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk if released.
If no hearing occurs within fourteen days of this Order, Petitioner shall be released from
Respondents’ custody.
The Parties SHALL file a Joint Status Report by March 27, 2026, informing the
Court of the outcome of the hearing. The Clerk SHALL close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2026
1 The Court declines to address the issues raised by Petitioner regarding the neutrality of immigration
courts generally.
Case 3:26-cv-00914-JLS-JLB Document 11 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5