Aydin Abbasov v. Jeremy Casey

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 15, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-01867
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AYDIN ABBASOV, Case No.: 26-cv-1867-BJC-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 v. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 14 JEREMY CASEY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On March 24, 2026, Petitioner Aydin Abbasov, proceeding pro se, filed a petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241. ECF No. 1. On March 27, 19 2026, the Court appointed the office of Federal Defenders to represent Petitioner and 20 directed that an Amended Petition be filed no later than April 10, 2026. ECF No. 3. On 21 March 31, 2026, Petitioner, with assistance from Federal Defenders, filed an Amended 22 Petition. ECF No. 7. On April 7, 2026, Respondent filed a Return. ECF No. 9. On April 23 12, 2026, Petitioner filed a Traverse. ECF No. 10. 24 Petitioner is a citizen of Azerbaijan who entered the United States on March 19, 25 2025. Id. at 2. Petitioner was injured when entering the United States and was admitted to 26 a hospital. Id. Ex. A ¶1. After Petitioner’s injuries healed, he was taken into custody and 27 he has remained at the Imperial Regional Detention Center since that time. Id. On April 28 23, 2025, Petitioner was found to have a credible fear during the interview conducted by 1 ICE. Id. ¶ 2. Petitioner filed an application for asylum that was denied on February 5, 2 2026. Id. Petitioner now seeks his release, or in the alternative, a bond hearing. 3 I. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Courts may grant habeas corpus relief to those “in custody in violation of the 5 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241; see also Hamdi v. 6 Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525, 124 S. Ct. 2633, 2644, 159 L. Ed. 2d 578 (2004) (“[T]he writ 7 of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States.”). 8 Courts are authorized to grant writs pursuant to § 2241 to noncitizens in custody in 9 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Magana-Pizano v. 10 I.N.S., 200 F.3d 603, 609 (9th Cir. 1999). 11 The Ninth Circuit has held that immigration detainees “facing prolonged detention” 12 are “entitled to a bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge.” Singh v. Holder, 638 13 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011). In these hearings, the government must meet their burden 14 by clear and convincing evidence due to the “substantial liberty interest at stake.” Id. 15 Detainees are also entitled to a transcript or audio recording of their bond hearings to 16 comport with due process. Id. at 1208. The holding in Singh was abrogated in part in 17 Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 2022) where the Ninth Circuit 18 declined to extend the standard to bond hearings for people detained under 8 U.S.C. § 19 1226(a), however, the holding did not overturn the application of the standard to hearings 20 for those held under § 1225(b).. In addition to the above standards, an IJ must “consider 21 [petitioner’s] ability to pay and alternatives to detention when setting any bond amount.” 22 Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133, 158 (2nd Cir. 2024); Sandesh v. LaRose, 2026 WL 622690, 23 *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026). 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 26 Amendment and that his detention has become prolonged. ECF No. 7 at 3. Petitioner seeks 27 his release, or in the alternative, a bond hearing. Id. at 16. If the Court orders Respondents 28 to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing, he asks that additional safeguards are in place, 1 including that the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence that 2 Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk, because he argues that “the current administration 3 ha[s] severely compromised IJs’ neutrality” and “there is a serious risk that an IJ will order 4 [Petitioner’s] continued detention even if he poses no danger or flight risk. Id. at 9. He 5 requests that this Court order the IJ to consider alternative conditions of release, that 6 concerns about interrupting court schedules cannot provide a ground to deny bond, and that 7 Respondents make a complete record of the bond hearing available to Petitioner and his 8 counsel. Id. To ensure that the IJ complies with the Court’s order, Petitioner asks that this 9 Court direct Respondents to file a Notice of Compliance within five days of Petitioner’s 10 bond hearing that includes the results of the hearing. Id. at 16. 11 In response to the Petition, Respondents “acknowledge that courts in this District 12 have repeatedly inferred a constitutional right against prolonged mandatory detention” and 13 concede that “this Court should order that Petitioner receive a bond hearing, where the 14 government would bear the burden of proof of establishing by clear and convincing 15 evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.” Response at 16 2, ECF No. 9. In light of Respondent’s concession that Petitioner is entitled to a bond 17 hearing, the Court grants the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court declines to 18 address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the neutrality of immigration courts, noting that 19 the IJ is required to follow proper legal standards to “effectuate this Court’s order for a 20 bond hearing.” Sandesh, 2026 WL 622690, * 5. 21 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 22 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas 23 corpus and ORDERS Respondents to conduct a bond hearing no later than April 30, 24 2026. At the bond hearing, 25 (1) the government SHALL BEAR the burden of showing by clear and convincing 26 evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger; 27 (2) the IJ SHALL consider alternative conditions of release and Petitioner’s ability 28 to pay bond if he or she determines bond is appropriate; and l (3) Respondents SHALL make a complete record of the bond hearing available to 2 Petitioner and his counsel. 3 || The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to CLOSE the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: April 15, 2026 6

8 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28