Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-01454-RBM-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
LI ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior
Warden Otay Mesa Detention Center, et
al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01454-RBM-DDL
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 1]
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Li Zhang’s (“Petitioner”) Verified Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) For
the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China. (Id. ¶ 1.) She unlawfully
entered the United States on August 23, 2025, where she was immediately detained by the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). 	(Id. ¶ 21–22.) 	She passed a credible fear
interview, filed an application for asylum, and has a merits hearing set for April 3, 2026.
(Id. ¶ 22.) She has remained in custody since her arrival in the United States. (Id. ¶ 24.)
On March 6, 2026, Petitioner filed the Petition. 	(Doc. 1.) 	The Court shortly
thereafter issued a briefing schedule and Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 2.) On March 16,
2026, Respondents filed their Return to Habeas Petition and Notice of Non-Opposition.
(Doc. 4.) Petitioner filed her Traverse the next day. (Doc. 5.)
Case 3:26-cv-01454-RBM-DDL Document 7 Filed 03/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-01454-RBM-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
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 her detention without a bond hearing violates the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 25–29.) Respondents do not oppose holding
a bond hearing for Petitioner. (Doc. 4 at 1.) Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
The Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing within ten (10) days of
the entry of this Order. At the bond hearing, Respondents shall bear the burden of
establishing, by clear and convincing evidence,1 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,
1 See Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1090, 1095 (S.D. Cal. 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-01454-RBM-DDL Document 7 Filed 03/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-01454-RBM-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
Respondents shall release Petitioner from custody until it is determined that her
detention is warranted.
3. On or before April 3, 2026, Respondents shall file a status report indicating whether
and when Petitioner received a bond hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 17, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01454-RBM-DDL Document 7 Filed 03/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3