Ganlin Yu v. Jeremy Casey, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GANLIN YU, Case No.: 26cv3452-LL-VET

12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. (1) DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 14 JEREMY CASEY, et al., OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 15 Respondents. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1] 16

17 (2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO VACATE ORDER TO SHOW 18 CAUSE 19 [ECF No. 5] 20 21 Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Ganlin Yu’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas 22 Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed a Return. ECF No. 23 4. Respondents also filed a Motion to Vacate Order to Show Cause and Lift Stay of 24 Removal (“Motion”). ECF No. 5. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the 25 Petition and DENIES AS MOOT the Motion. 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 Petitioner is a citizen of China who arrived in the United States by plane on 28 March 22, 2025 with a “nonimmigrant U.S. visa B1/B2 class” and seeking asylum. ECF 1 No. 4-2 at 2–3. Petitioner was found to be inadmissible under section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of 2 the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) for lacking a valid entry document and was 3 advised that she needs a “valid U.S. visa and/or a waiver to be considered for admission 4 into the United States.” Id. at 3, 6. 5 Petitioner was detained and processed for expedited removal pending a credible fear 6 hearing. Id. at 3. An asylum officer found Petitioner demonstrated a credible fear of 7 persecution or torture. Id. at 6. On January 23, 2026, an immigration judge denied 8 Petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the 9 INA, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Id. at 9. She was 10 ordered removed to China. Id. at 11. When Petitioner did not file an appeal with the Board 11 of Immigration Appeals, the order became administratively final on January 23, 2026. ECF 12 No. 4-1, Declaration of Edgar Olvera (“Olvera Decl.”), ¶ 3. 13 On June 8, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. Pet. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus when a petitioner “is in custody 16 in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 17 § 2241(c); Magana-Pizano v. I.N.S., 200 F.3d 603, 609 (9th Cir. 1999) (“28 U.S.C. § 2241 18 expressly permits the federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to aliens when those 19 aliens are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 20 States.’”). In federal habeas proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proving his case 21 by a preponderance of evidence. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 970 n.16 (9th Cir. 22 2004); Bellew v. Gunn, 532 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1976) (citations omitted). 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 Petitioner seeks relief from prolonged detention without a bond hearing. Pet. 25 Respondents contend that Petitioner is (1) properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, 26 (2) her claim is unripe under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and (3) Immigration 27 and Customs Enforcement has a valid travel document and Petitioner is scheduled to be 28 / / / 1 removed from the United States in the next two weeks. ECF No. 4 at 2; Olvera 2 Decl. ¶¶ 6–8. 3 When a noncitizen has been found to be unlawfully present in the United States and 4 a final order of removal has been entered, they must be detained for up to ninety days 5 pending the government’s efforts to secure their removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)–(2). 6 This ninety-day period is referred to as the “removal period.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). 7 After the removal period, this statute “limits [a noncitizen’s] post-removal-period detention 8 to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that [noncitizen’s] removal from the United 9 States” and “does not permit indefinite detention.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689. A six-month 10 period of post-removal detention constitutes a “presumptively reasonable period of 11 detention.” Id. at 701. After this six-month period passes, the petitioner has the burden to 12 “provide[ ] good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the 13 reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. If the petitioner satisfies their initial burden, then the 14 burden shifts to the government to rebut that showing. Id. “[F]or detention to remain 15 reasonable, as the period of prior postremoval confinement grows, what counts as the 16 ‘reasonably foreseeable future’ conversely would have to shrink.” Id. “[O]nce removal is 17 no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute.” 18 Id. at 699. In that case, the noncitizen’s release may be “conditioned on any of the various 19 forms of supervised release that are appropriate in the circumstances.” Id. at 700; see 20 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3). 21 The Court finds that Petitioner’s detention of approximately five months after a final 22 order of removal—beginning on January 23, 2026—is presumptively reasonable. See 23 Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701; see also, e.g., Khalilova v. Smith, No. 25-CV-2140 JLS (DDL), 24 2025 WL 3089522, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2025) (finding detention of about four months 25 after a final order of removal to be within the presumptively reasonable period). Petitioner 26 has provided no evidence to rebut the presumption and does not provide good reason to 27 believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 28 / / / 1 || future. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s Petition is premature and there is no 2 || grounds for relief at this time. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 5 ||Corpus without prejudice. Accordingly, Respondents’ Motion to Vacate Order to Show 6 || Cause and Lift Stay of Removal is DENIED as moot. As this concludes the litigation in 7 matter, the Clerk of Court shall close this matter. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: June 25, 2026 NO 10 Qe | 11 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28