Mohamed Eljaraouy v. Jeremy Casey, Warden, Imperial Regional Detention Facility

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHAMED ELJARAOUY, Case No.: 3:26-cv-01449-BTM-AHG

12 Petitioner, ORDER CONDITIONALLY 13 v. GRANTING PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14

15 JEREMY CASEY, Warden, Imperial [ECF NO. 1] Regional Detention Facility, 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 Mohamed Eljaraouy petitioned the Court for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on March 6, 2026. (ECF No. 1.) He claims that his fifteen-month 21 detention “without adequate procedural protection” is unreasonably prolonged and violates 22 the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. (Id. at 4–5.) 23 The Respondent “concedes that this Court should order that Petitioner receive a bond 24 hearing, where the government would bear the burden of proof of establishing, by clear 25 and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of 26 flight.” (ECF No. 7, at 1 (citations omitted).) The Petitioner argues that immediate release 27 is the correct remedy for the violation of his Due Process rights rather than a bond hearing. 28 He contends that the government’s repeated failure to obtain a Tarifit interpreter caused 1 his credible fear interview and immigration-court hearings to be continued “each and every 2 time, notwithstanding the fact that [the government] knows he only speaks Tarifit.” (ECF 3 No. 8, at 2 (citing Ex. A, ¶ 6).) Therefore, he argues the Respondent “should not be 4 permitted to detain him any further.” (Id.) Because the parties agree that the Petitioner’s 5 claim warrants relief, the Court addresses only what relief is warranted. 6 The Court has the equitable discretion to remedy unlawful detention “as law and 7 justice require.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241; see Brown v. Davenport, 596 U.S. 118, 134 (2022). 8 The relief ordered, however, “must be narrowly tailored to remedy the specific harm 9 shown.” E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640, 680 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 10 Bresgal v. Brock, 843 F.2d 1163, 1169–1170 (9th Cir. 1987)). 11 Here, the Petitioner’s asylum claim and immigration proceedings have stalled 12 because the government has not fulfilled its duty to provide an interpreter. See 8 C.F.R. 13 § 208.30(d)(5) (“If the alien is unable to proceed effectively in English, and if the asylum 14 officer is unable to proceed competently in a language the alien speaks and understands, 15 the asylum officer shall arrange for the assistance of an interpreter in conducting the 16 interview.” (emphasis added)); Perez-Lastor v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 208 F.3d 17 773, 778 (9th Cir. 2000) (“If an alien does not speak English, deportation proceedings must 18 be translated into a language the alien understands.”). Courts have ordered release in 19 similar situations where the government failed to justify prolonged detention and violated 20 a detainee’s Due Process rights. See, e.g., Moctezuma v. Henkey, 2026 WL 18809, at *5 21 (D. Idaho Jan. 2, 2026) (collecting cases). Yet the Court recognizes that the government 22 has “countervailing interests in immigration enforcement”—such as evaluating whether an 23 individual is a flight risk or danger to the community—that can be satisfied with a narrowly 24 tailored remedy. See Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1206, 1209 (9th Cir. 25 2022). Given the interests of the Petitioner and the government, the writ of habeas corpus 26 will issue conditionally. Cf. Lujan v. Garcia, 734 F.3d 917, 933 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[A] court 27 may issue a conditional writ that requires the state to release a petitioner unless it takes 28 some other remedial action, such as retrial of the petitioner.”). l The writ may issue to release the Petitioner from custody unless the Respondent 2 || provides the Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within twenty-one (21) days of 3 ||this Order. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that 4 ||noncitizens! “facing prolonged detention” are “entitled to a bond hearing before a neutral 5 ||immigration judge.”). The Respondent must arrange for a Tarifit interpreter to be present, 6 ||in person or by telephone, for the bond hearing. The bond hearing must be before a fair, 7 ||neutral, and open-minded immigration judge who is ordered to determine whether the 8 || Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and what bond conditions, if any, 9 || would be appropriate to ensure the Petitioner’s appearance. During the bond hearing, the 10 |}Government shall bear the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that 11 || the Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk. See Sandesh v. LaRose, 2026 WL 622690, at 12 || *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026). If the immigration judge denies bond, the judge must make 13 specific findings as to why the Petitioner is a flight risk or a danger to the community. 14 Accordingly, the petition for the writ of habeas corpus is CONDITIONALLY 15 ||}GRANTED. The Respondent shall provide a bond hearing in accordance with the 16 ||/requirements ordered above no later than April 29, 2026. The parties shall file a joint 17 ||statement as to the satisfaction of the writ no later than April 30, 2026, at 12 p.m. The 18 || Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the writ. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 8, 2026 il Jueek Honorable Barry Ted Moskow 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 || ——_ 28 ' This order uses the term “noncitizen” as equivalent to the statutory term “alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3); see Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. 222, 226 n.2 (2020).