Hui Wu (A# 226-134-804) v. Moises Becerra, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 24, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-04017
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUI WU (A# 226-134-804), No. 1:26-cv-04017 DJC SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MOISES BECERRA, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding through appointed counsel with a 18 habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The assigned District Judge referred the 19 matter to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. ECF No. 4. 20 The undisputed record in this case shows that Petitioner, a citizen and national of China, 21 was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol agents on September 9, 2024, shortly after entering the United 22 States without inspection. Immigration officials issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear the next 23 day, administratively charging him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (noncitizen 24 present without admission or parole) and released him on his own recognizance due to lack of bed 25 space. ECF No. 8-1 at 12. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents re-detained Petitioner 26 on September 30, 2025, over a year later, during a check-in appointment, explaining that 27 “[c]ircumstances have changed where bed space is available.” Id. Petitioner remains detained at 28 the Golden State Annex Detention Facility within this judicial district. ECF No. 8 at 8, ¶ 26. 1 Petitioner, through appointed counsel, filed an amended § 2241 petition on June 10, 2026, 2 alleging, inter alia, that Petitioner’s re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated 3 procedural due process. ECF No. 8 at 22-23, ¶¶ 77-81. He seeks immediate release and 4 facilitation back to New York where he was detained, or, in the alternative, a bond hearing before 5 an immigration judge (“IJ”) in which the government must establish by clear and convincing 6 evidence that he is a risk of danger or flight. Id. at 26.1 Respondents filed a cursory opposition, 7 asserting the view that Petitioner is an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and 8 does not possess a liberty interest apart from those provided by the statute. ECF No. 9 at 1-2. 9 Petitioner has no criminal record, ECF No. 8 at 21, ¶ 72, and there is no evidence in the 10 record that he has failed to comply with any conditions of release. On January 20, 2026, an 11 immigration judge denied Petitioner’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal and 12 ordered him removed. ECF No. 9-1 at 13. Petitioner’s appeal of that ruling is pending before the 13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Id. at 16-18. Therefore, his order of removal is not 14 administratively final and he is not within the 90-day “removal period” in which detention is 15 mandatory. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B) (describing when removal period begins); Ocampo v 16 Holder, 629 F.3d 923, 926 (9th Cir. 2010) (an order of removal becomes administratively final 17 “only upon the earlier of (i) a BIA determination affirming the order or (ii) the expiration of the 18 deadline to seek the BIA’s review of the order.”) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B)). 19 Considering all of these factors, and consistent with the Court’s rulings in Singh v. 20 Andrews, No. 1:25-cv-01543-DJC-SCR, 2025 WL 3248059 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025), Mariagua 21 v. Chestnut, No. 1:25-cv-01744-DJC-CSK, 2025 WL 3551700 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2025), and 22 Ortega v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01663-DJC-CKD, 2025 WL 3511914 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025), the 23 undersigned finds that Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process was violated 24 by his re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends 25 the amended petition be granted on Count 2 (procedural due process). 26 1 Several district court judges have required habeas respondents to return a successful habeas 27 petitioner to their location of arrest, “which reflects the status quo prior to” such arrest. Orellana- Rivera v. Johnson, No. 5:26-CV-02116-HDV-AJR, 2026 WL 1390433, at *5 n.6 (C.D. Cal. May 28 14, 2026) (collecting cases). 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. Petitioner’s first amended application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 8) be 4 granted on Count 2.2 5 2. Respondents be ordered to release Petitioner HUI WU (A# 226-134-804) 6 immediately and to not impose any additional restrictions on him, unless they are determined to 7 be necessary at a future pre-deprivation/custody hearing. 8 3. At the time of release, Respondents be required to return all of Petitioner’s 9 documents and possessions. 10 4. If the government seeks to re-detain Petitioner, it must provide no less than 7 days 11 of notice to Petitioner and must hold a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral arbiter at 12 which Petitioner’s eligibility for bond must be considered. At any such hearing, the government 13 shall bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a 14 danger to the community or a risk of flight. 15 5. Respondents be directed to file a notice of compliance within three days of any 16 order adopting these findings and recommendations. 17 6. Any order adopting these findings and recommendations states that it does not 18 address the circumstances in which Respondents may detain Petitioner in the event Petitioner 19 becomes subject to an executable final order of removal and Petitioner receives notice of that 20 final order of removal. 21 7. The Clerk of Court be directed to: 22 a. Serve a copy of any order adopting these findings and recommendations on the 23 Golden State Annex Detention Facility; and 24 b. Enter judgment for Petitioner and to close this case. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within three days after 27 2 In the interests of judicial economy, any remaining claims in the § 2241 petition are not 28 addressed herein. 1 | being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 2 || the court and serve a copy on all parties. The undersigned finds that a shortened objection period 3 || is warranted in this case given the nature of the relief at issue as well as the fact that the parties 4 | have had sufficient time to submit all of their arguments in written briefs. See United States v. 5 || Barney, 568 F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) sets 6 || the maximum objection period and not the minimum); see also Local Rule 304(b). The parties 7 || are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal 8 | the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 || DATED: June 23, 2026 10

12 SEAN C. RIORDAN 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28