Asghar Payman Farsi v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ASGHAR PAYMAN FARSI, Case No. 5:25-cv-03275-WLH-MBK 13 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 14 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 15 KRISTI NOEM, et al., JUDGE 16 Respondents. 17

18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court reviewed the Petition, the 19 records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge. Respondents filed objections to the Report and 21 Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 22). Having considered Respondents’ objections 22 to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds them unpersuasive and 23 unresponsive to the due process framework that forms the backdrop of this 24 Petition. Statutory frameworks aside, Respondents’ conduct must comport 25 with basic due process principles (i.e. notice and an opportunity to be heard). 26 The mere fact that 8 U.S.C. 1231 and 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i)(3) 27 govern any future revocation of Petitioner’s Order of Supervision does not 28 1 | moot this case or negate the looming threat of Respondents repeating the 2 | same unlawful conduct by re-detaining Petitioner. “A defendant’s voluntary 3 | cessation of allegedly unlawful conduct ordinarily does not suffice to moot a 4 | case.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 5 | 167, 174 (2000). “Thus, the standard for determining whether a case has been 6 | mooted by the defendant’s voluntary conduct is stringent: A case might 7 | become moot if subsequent events make it absolutely clear that the allegedly 8 | wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Id. (citing 9 | United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., 393 U.S. 199, 203 10 | (1968)). 11 Here, it is not “absolutely” clear that Respondents will not again engage 12 | in the wrongful conduct justifying this relief. Neither is the threat of 13 | constitutional injury “speculative” or “hypothetical” as Respondents assert. 14 | Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation’s position 15 | that the recommended relief is in accordance with the principles of mootness 16 | and due process. The Court ultimately concurs with and accepts the findings 17 | and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. 18 IT IS ORDERED that: 19 (1) Judgment be entered granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus; 20 (2) a writ of habeas corpus be issued prohibiting Petitioners’ re- 21 detention re-detaining Petitioner unless and until he is provided 22 proper due process necessary for the revocation of an OSUP; and 23 (3) dismissing this case with prejudice. 24 _ 25 Lag i ——

26 Dated: May 6, 2026 HON. WESLEY L. HSU 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28