Jiaxing XIE v. Christopher J. LAROSE, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Jiaxing XIE, Case No.: 26cv1421-LL-BLM

12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 13 v. TO PETITION AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 Christopher J. LAROSE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Jiaxing is a detainee in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland 19 Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On March 5, 2026, he filed a Petition 20 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner entered 21 the United States without inspection on January 8, 2025. Pet. ¶ 16. Upon arrival, Petitioner 22 informed the border patrol that he feared returning to China. Id. He was ultimately 23 transferred to Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. On February 20, 2025, an immigration 24 judge (“IJ”) found him to be credible and made a positive determination of credible fear of 25 persecution in China. Id. ¶ 17. On November 10, 2025, the IJ granted DHS’s motion to 26 pretermit, denied all forms of relief, and ordered Petitioner be removed to China. Id. ¶ 19. 27 Petitioner timely filed his appeal on November 26, 2025. Id. Petitioner alleges that his 28 prolonged detention violated his due process right under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 1 (2001). Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to, inter alia, 2 immediately release him from custody. Id. at 12. 3 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted 4 at this time. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Summary 5 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague [or] 6 conclusory’ or ‘palpably incredible’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” (citations omitted)). 7 Additionally, the Court finds it necessary to order a limited stay pursuant to the All 8 Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to preserve the status quo until the Court can provide a 9 reasoned decision, in order to avoid any potential jurisdictional problems if Petitioner is 10 removed from this district.1 See E-C-R- v. Noem, No. 3:25-CV-1230-SI, 2025 WL 11 2300543, at *1 & n.1 (D. Or. July 16, 2025) (“Courts around the country exercise their 12 authority under the All Writs Act to maintain their jurisdiction over pending immigration 13 matters by preserving the status quo.” (collecting cases)). 14 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 15 1. Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should 16 not be granted by filing a written Return on or before March 13, 2026. The Return shall 17 include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition and 18 shall address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is needed. Respondents shall 19 serve a copy of its Return upon Petitioner concurrently with the filing. 20 2. Petitioner may reply to the Return by filing a Traverse on or before March 21 18, 2026. 22 3. After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission 23 and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are 24 notified otherwise. 25

26 27 1 Under the All Writs Act, “all courts established by an Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages 28 l 4. Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons 2 || acting in active concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from removing 3 Petitioner from the United States or this district pending further order of the Court, 4 ||to maintain the status quo to allow the Court to provide a reasoned decision. 5 5. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [ECF 6 || No. 1] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: March 5, 2026 NO 9 DE 10 Honorable Linda Lopez 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28