Asghar Payman Farsi v. Kristi Noem, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASGHAR PAYMAN FARSI, Case No. 5:25-cv-03275-WLH-MBK Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE KRISTI NOEM, et al., JUDGE Respondents.

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

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