Satnam Singh v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00265
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SATNAM SINGH, Case No.: 26-cv-0265-GPC-BLM

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Homeland HABEAS CORPUS Security, et al. 15 (2) DENYING JOINT MOTION Respondents. TO CONTINUE AS MOOT 16

17 [ECF Nos. 1, 6]

18 On January 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). On January 22, 2026, Respondents filed a return 20 to the petition. ECF No. 5 (“Ret.”). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN 21 PART the petition for writ of habeas corpus, VACATES the hearing set for January 30, 22 2026, and DENIES the Joint Motion to Continue the Order to Show Cause Hearing as 23 moot. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 a. Factual Background 3 Petitioner is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States without 4 inspection on January 8, 2025 near San Ysidro, California. Pet. ¶ 1. After entering the 5 country, border patrol agents encountered and detained Petitioner. Ret., Ex. 2. Border 6 agents determined Petitioner was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Ret. 7 at 2. Petitioner was then placed into expedited removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 8 1225(b)(1) and taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody 9 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B). Id. Petitioner was then interviewed by an asylum 10 officer and received a positive credible fear determination. Id. 11 On February 19, 2025, Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), 12 scheduling his initial master calendar hearing for March 3, 2025. ECF No. 1-2. On January 13 13, 2026, an immigration judge scheduled Petitioner’s individual merits hearing for April 14 15, 2026. Ret., Ex. 3. Thus, Petitioner’s removal proceedings remain pending. Petitioner is 15 presently detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center and has been denied an 16 individualized bond hearing. Pet. ¶ 1. 17 b. Procedural Background 18 On January 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On January 22, 2026, Respondents filed a 20 return. ECF No. 5. 21 Petitioner presents two claims. First, Petitioner claims that his detention without a 22 bond hearing violates the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause. Pet. ¶¶ 1, 31-34. (First 23 Cause of Action). Second, Petitioner alleges Respondents have violated the Immigration 24 and Nationality Act (“INA”) by (1) misapplying §1225(b)(2) to Petitioner, who had 25 already entered and was residing in the United States at the time of apprehension and (2) 26 27 1 failing to detain Petitioner pursuant to a warrant as required under § 1226(a). Id. ¶¶ 27- 2 30. 3 The Petitioner asks the court to (1) declare ICE’s “Interim Guidance Regarding 4 Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission” policy unlawful, (2) issue a writ of 5 habeas corpus clarifying that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to Petitioner and requiring 6 Respondents to release Petitioner immediately with a seven days’ notice requirement and 7 provide a pre-deprivation bond hearing if Respondents seeks to re-detain Petitioner. Id. at 8 17-18. 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a writ of habeas corpus may be granted to any petitioner 11 who demonstrates that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties 12 of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 473 (2004). 13 As explained by the Supreme Court, “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person 14 in custody upon the legality of that custody, and...the traditional function of the writ is to 15 secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973); 16 Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2023) (habeas actions limited to 17 challenges of the legality or duration of confinement). 18 A prisoner bears the burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of 19 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See Espinoza v. Sabol, 558 F.3d 20 83, 89 (1st Cir. 2009). 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 a. Jurisdiction 23 Petitioner invokes this Court’s jurisdiction under the habeas provision, 28 U.S.C. § 24 2241, the Suspension Clause, federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 25 702. Respondents maintain that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims, 26 stating that the claims and relief are barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). 27 1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) states that, with limited exceptions, “no court shall have 2 jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision 3 or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute 4 removal orders against any alien.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (emphasis added); Reno v. Am.-Arab 5 Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999). In that light, § 1252(g) is a narrow 6 statutory provision that concentrates on those three discrete actions. Reno, 525 U.S. at 482. 7 Respondents argue that the § 1252(g) bar applies because Petitioner’s claims arise 8 “from the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to commence removal 9 proceedings against him.” Ret. at 4. Specifically, the government’s decision “unavoidably 10 triggers mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) until the conclusion of 11 his removal proceedings.” Id. However, rather than challenging the decision to commence 12 proceedings, Petitioner challenges the legality of his detainment, specifically objecting to 13 the application of § 1225(b)(1) and the prolonged length of detention. See Pet. at 7-16. 14 Detainment of Petitioner does not fall within the three discrete actions identified in § 15 1252(g) and, thus, would not deprive the Court’s jurisdiction. See, e.g., Aditya W. H. v. 16 Trump, 782 F. Supp. 3d 691, 704 (D. Minn. 2025) (finding a claim against detention did 17 not fall under Section 1252(g)); Mahdawi v. Trump, 781 F. Supp. 3d 214, 224-26 (D. Vt. 18 2025) (same); Deng Chol A. v. Barr, 455 F. Supp. 3d 896, 901 (D. Minn. 2020) (“Although 19 the court may not review discretionary decisions made by immigration authorities, it may 20 review immigration-related detentions to determine if they comport with the demands of 21 the Constitution.”). 22 b. Merits 23 Petitioner claims that his detention violates the INA and the Fifth Amendment’s Due 24 Process Clause. Pet. ¶¶ 27-34. Respondents, in turn, maintain that Petitioner is mandatorily 25 detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and has not been subjected to unconstitutionally 26 prolonged detention. Ret. at 5-11. 27 1 i. Detainment Under the INA 2 Section 1225(b)(1) states that “[i]f an immigration officer determines that an 3 alien…who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible 4 under section 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7)…and the alien indicates either an intention to 5 apply for asylum…or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview 6 by an asylum officer under.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii). Once the noncitizen has been 7 referred for an interview, “[i]f the [asylum] officer determines at the time of the interview 8 that an alien has a credible fear of persecution…the alien shall be detained for further 9 consideration of the application for asylum.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Thus Section 10 1225(b)(1) “mandate[s] detention of applicants for admission until certain proceedings 11 have concluded.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018). Until the noncitizen’s 12 asylum application has been fully considered, “nothing in the statutory text imposes any 13 limit on the length of detention…[or] says anything whatsoever about bond hearings.” Id. 14 Here, Petitioner is a noncitizen and an applicant for admission. See 8 U.S.C. § 15 1225(a)(1). An immigration officer determined Petitioner was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 16 §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Ret. at 2, Exs. 1-3. Petitioner, however, 17 indicated a fear of persecution, was given an interview, and received a positive 18 determination. Ret. at 2. These facts indicate that Petitioner falls within the purview of 19 Section 1225(b)(1). 20 Petitioner notes that § 1225(b) provides for mandatory detention of those seeking 21 admission into the United States, and that this does not apply to Petitioner, who was already 22 residing in the country at the time of apprehension. Pet. at 9. While there is a distinction 23 between applicants seeking admission and those who have resided in the United States for 24 years, and thus a distinction in application between § 1225(b) and 1226(a), that distinction 25 does not apply to Petitioner. See generally Pacham v. Archambeault, No. 3:25-CV-03163- 26 GPC-DEB, 2025 WL 3653984 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2025). Petitioner was detained within 27 1 fourteen days of their last entry into the United States and within 100 miles of any land 2 border. See Ret., Ex. 2. The NTA identified both 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and 3 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as the sources of Petitioner’s inadmissibility, which places Petitioner 4 under Section 1225(b)(1). Id., Ex. 1. Further, Petitioner demonstrated a credible fear of 5 persecution and torture, the demonstration of which results in detainment for further 6 consideration of the application for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). 7 Thus, Petitioner is lawfully detained under Section 1225(b)(1). 8 ii. Prolonged Detention 9 1. Entitlement to Due Process Claim 10 While Petitioner is mandatorily detained under Section 1225(b)(1), he has raised a 11 due process claim, arguing that his detention has become unconstitutionally prolonged. Pet. 12 at 12-14. Respondents contend, relying on Thuraissigiam, that inadmissible arriving 13 noncitizens have no due process rights other than those afforded by statute. Ret. at 7. 14 In Thuraissigiam, the respondent was a noncitizen detained close to the border and 15 shortly after unlawful entry. Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 16 (2020). Keeping those characteristics in mind, the Supreme Court held that those “in 17 respondent's position ha[ve] only those rights regarding admission that Congress has 18 provided by statute.” Id. 19 After the decision, district courts have taken two different approaches. In one blanket 20 approach, district courts have dismissed or denied habeas petitions from those in 21 Petitioner’s position when they challenge detention on due process grounds and go beyond 22 statutory protections. See, e.g., Petgrave v. Aleman, 529 F. Supp. 3d 665, 669 (S.D. Tex. 23 2021) (“As far as Petitioner is concerned, whatever procedure Congress has authorized is 24 sufficient due process.”); Gonzales Garcia v. Rosen, 513 F. Supp. 3d 329, 336 (W.D.N.Y. 25 2021) (“Petitioner is on the threshold of initial entry into the United States and [ ] he 26 accordingly is not entitled to procedural protections beyond those provided by statute.”); 27 1 Zelaya-Gonzalez v. Matuszewski, No. 23-CV-151-JLS-KSC, 2023 WL 3103811, at *4 2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2023) (“Binding Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents are clear 3 that Petitioner lacks any rights beyond those conferred by statute, and no statute entitles 4 Petitioner to a bond hearing.”); Mendoza-Linares v. Garland, No. 21-CV-1169-BEN- 5 AHG, 2024 WL 3316306, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 10, 2024) (same). 6 However, a majority of courts have opted for an alternative, as-applied approach. 7 Specifically, while facial challenges to mandatory detention have been rejected, see 8 Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 530-31 (2003), nothing has been said “about whether due 9 process may eventually require a hearing.” Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133, 149 (2d Cir. 10 2024) (emphasis in original). This is also true for Thuraissigiam. Though Thuraissigiam 11 limits an arriving noncitizen’s due process rights in regard to admission, the court did not 12 address the issue of prolonged detention. See Padilla v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, 704 13 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1171 (W.D. Wash. 2023) (“Thuraissigiam’s discussion of due process 14 is necessarily constrained to challenges to admissibility to the United States. This was the 15 sole claim presented and the respondent expressly asked for a chance to reapply for asylum 16 and admission.”). 17 Additionally, “the Supreme Court has…explicitly stated that as-applied 18 constitutional challenges to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)[, which cover mandatory detention under 19 that statute,] are not foreclosed.” Abdul-Samed v. Warden of Golden State Annex Det. 20 Facility, No. 1:25-CV-00098-SAB-HC, 2025 WL 2099343, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2025). 21 While the Ninth Circuit has not spoken on whether due process requires a bond hearing for 22 noncitizens mandatorily detained, the First, Second, and Third Circuits have held that “the 23 Due Process Clause imposes some form of ‘reasonableness’ limitation upon the duration 24 of detention ... under [section 1226(c)].” Reid v. Donelan, 17 F.4th 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2021) 25 (alterations in original) (citation omitted); see Black, 103 F.4th at 138; German Santos v. 26 Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2020). Though § 1225(b) 27 1 was not specifically addressed by the Supreme Court or the three Circuit courts, § 1225(b) 2 contains similar mandatory detention provisions to § 1226(c). Thus, the reasoning 3 underlying this as-applied approach would seemingly also transfer to § 1225(b). 4 Given this background, a majority of district courts have found prolonged detention 5 under § 1225(b) without a bond hearing can eventually give rise to due process issues. See, 6 e.g., Sadeqi v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2587-RSH-BJW, 2025 WL 3154520, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 7 Nov. 12, 2025) (“This Court agrees with the majority position that a petitioner detained 8 under Section 1225(b)(1) may assert a due process challenge to prolonged mandatory 9 detention without a bond hearing.”); Abdul-Samed v. Warden of Golden State Annex Det. 10 Facility, No. 25-cv-98-SAB-HC, 2025 WL 2099343, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2025) 11 (“Although the Ninth Circuit has yet to take a position on whether due process requires a 12 bond hearing for noncitizens detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)…‘essentially all district 13 courts that have considered the issue agree that prolonged mandatory detention pending 14 removal proceedings, without a bond hearing, will—at some point—violate the right to 15 due process.’”) (quoting Martinez v. Clark, No. C18-1669-RAJ-MAT, 2019 WL 5968089, 16 at *6 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2019)); Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772 (S.D. Cal. 17 2020) (“[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across the country in concluding that an 18 unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized 19 bond hearing violates due process.”); Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1116 20 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (collecting cases); A.L. v. Oddo, 761 F. Supp. 3d 822, 825 (W.D. Pa. 21 2025) (“Nowhere in [Thuraissigiam] did the Supreme Court suggest that arriving aliens 22 being held under § 1225(b) may be held indefinitely and unreasonably with no due process 23 implications, nor that such aliens have no due process rights whatsoever.”). 24 The Court agrees with the majority. While Thuraissigiam limits an arriving 25 noncitizen’s due process rights in regard to admission, a petitioner may still assert a due 26 process claim against prolonged mandatory detention without a bond hearing. 27 1 2. Violation of Due Process 2 To determine whether a petitioner’s detention has been unreasonably prolonged, the 3 Court applies the Banda v. McAleenan’s six-factor analysis as a framework, which weighs: 4 (1) total length of detention to date; (2) likely duration of future detention; (3) conditions 5 of detention; (4) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) delays in 6 the removal proceedings caused by the government; and (6) the likelihood that the removal 7 proceedings will result in a final order of removal. Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 8 1099 (W.D. Wash. 2019).1 9 Total Length of Detention to Date. Petitioner has been detained for over one year. 10 Petitioner argues that this detention, without a bond hearing, is prolonged and a violation 11 of due process. Pet. at 11-16. Respondents, however, maintain that “Petitioner’s current 12 detention does not fall within the range [that] courts have found to be unreasonable.” Ret. 13 at 9. In Respondents’ view, detention should be for a much longer period to be 14 unreasonably prolonged. Id. 15 While one year of detention does not presumptively establish unreasonably 16 prolonged detention, it is also not so little time as to preclude constitutional scrutiny. See 17 Sadeqi v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2587-RSH-BJW, 2025 WL 3154520, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18 12, 2025) (“The Court agrees with Respondents that the length of Petitioner's detention to 19 date—almost 12 months—does not by itself, without more, establish prolonged detention 20 in violation of due process. But neither does that length of detention serve as a safe harbor 21 or insulate Petitioner's case from constitutional review.”). Additionally, courts have 22 previously found that similar or shorter lengths of detention were unreasonable. See, e.g., 23

24 1 Respondent offers a similar three-factor balancing test from Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. 25 Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022). Given that all factors considered in the Lopez test are 26 encapsulated in the Banda framework, the Court shall apply the more comprehensive Banda framework. 27 1 Gao v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2084-RSH-SBC, 2025 WL 2770633, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2 2025) (“The Court finds that Petitioner's detention for over 10 months without a bond 3 hearing, in the context of the specific circumstances described above, has become 4 unreasonable and violates due process.”); Amado v. United States Dep't of Just., No. 25- 5 CV-2687-LL-DDL, 2025 WL 3079052, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025) (“Courts have found 6 detention over seven months without a bond hearing weighs toward a finding that it is 7 unreasonable.”); Masood v. Barr, No. 19-CV-07623-JD, 2020 WL 95633, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 8 Jan. 8, 2020) (finding detention for nearly nine months weighs in favor of the petitioner). 9 Thus, this factor weighs in favor of Petitioner, though it is not determinative alone. 10 Likely Duration of Future Detention. The second factor requires consideration of 11 “how long the detention is likely to continue absent judicial intervention; in other words, 12 the ‘anticipated duration of all removal proceedings—including administrative and judicial 13 appeals.’” Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1119 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (quoting 14 Jamal A. v. Whitaker, 358 F. Supp. 3d 853, 859 (D. Minn. 2019)). 15 Here, the length of future detention is unclear. Petitioner’s initial master calendar 16 hearing was set for March 3, 2025, and his individual merits hearing is scheduled for April 17 15, 2026. Ret. at 2. “While the Court cannot definitively determine the duration of 18 petitioner's future detention, based on the current record, it appears likely petitioner will 19 face many more months and potentially years in detention,” especially if there is a petition 20 for review before the Court of Appeals. Belqasim v. Bostock, No. 2:25-CV-01282-LK- 21 TLF, 2025 WL 3466971, at *9 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 28, 2025), report and recommendation 22 adopted sub nom. Belqasim v. Hermosillo, No. 2:25-CV-01282-LK, 2025 WL 3170929 23 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2025); Guatam v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. 3:25-CV-3600-JES-DEB, 24 2026 WL 25846, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2026) (“[A] removal order may not become final 25 until after the appeals Petitioner could file, to both the Board of Immigration Appeals and 26 Ninth Circuit…These appeals can take a long time.”); Abdul-Samed v. Warden of Golden 27 1 State Annex Det. Facility, No. 1:25-CV-00098-SAB-HC, 2025 WL 2099343, at *7 (E.D. 2 Cal. July 25, 2025) (“Although the Court recognizes that future events are difficult to 3 predict, the Court nevertheless finds that in the event Petitioner's applications for relief 4 from removal are denied, Petitioner's possible administrative appeal and judicial review by 5 the Ninth Circuit will be sufficiently lengthy such that this factor weighs in favor of 6 Petitioner.”). 7 Thus, the Court finds this factor falls in favor of Petitioner. 8 Conditions of Detention. For the third factor, “[t]he more that the conditions under 9 which the noncitizen is being held resemble penal confinement, the stronger his argument 10 that he is entitled to a bond hearing.” Banda, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1119 (citation omitted). 11 Courts have recognized that the conditions at the Otay Mesa Detention Center are 12 “indistinguishable from penal confinement.” See Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 13 773 (S.D. Cal. 2020); Amado v. United States Dep't of Just., No. 25-CV-2687-LL-DDL, 14 2025 WL 3079052, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). Thus, this factor weighs in favor of 15 Petitioner. 16 Delays in Removal. The fourth and fifth factors concern delays in the removal 17 proceedings caused by Petitioner or the government. In terms of the fourth factor, neither 18 party has indicated Petitioner caused any undue delays. As for the fifth factor, the Petitioner 19 only points to “the immense backlogs of the Immigration Court system,” and no facts to 20 support the conclusion that the Respondent’s actions are responsible for undue delay. See 21 Pet. ¶ 6. There is also no indication in any of the filings that Respondents caused any delay 22 in the proceedings. In sum, both the fourth and fifth factors are neutral. 23 Likelihood of Final Removal Order. For the sixth Banda factor, the Court 24 evaluates the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final order of removal, 25 or “[i]n other words, the Court considers whether the noncitizen has asserted any defenses 26 to removal.” Banda, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1120. Here, Respondent has determined that 27 1 Petitioner demonstrates a positive credible fear determination. Petitioner will now have the 2 opportunity to present evidence supporting his asylum claims. While it remains unclear 3 how an IJ will eventually rule, Petitioner has so far presented a defense which reduces the 4 likelihood of a final removal order. Thus, the Court finds this factor slightly favors 5 Petitioner. 6 Weighing the Factors. In sum, at least four of the six factors weigh in favor 7 Petitioner, with the other factors being neutral. Accordingly, the Court concludes that 8 Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged. Thus, Petitioner is entitled to a 9 prompt and individualized bond hearing, where Respondents must justify Petitioner’s 10 continued detention “by a showing of clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner would 11 likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.” Sadeqi v. LaRose, No. 25-CV- 12 2587-RSH-BJW, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025); Abdul-Samed v. 13 Warden of Golden State Annex Det. Facility, No. 1:25-CV-00098-SAB-HC, 2025 WL 14 2099343, at *9 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2025); Toktosunov v. Wamsley, No. 2:25-CV-1724-TL, 15 2025 WL 3492858, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 5, 2025). 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 Based on the reasoning above, the Court GRANTS IN PART the petition for writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 In his petition, Petitioner requests release. Pet. at 16. “The Court finds, consistent 20 with other post-Jennings cases, that the appropriate remedy is a bond hearing before an 21 immigration judge[.]” Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 882 (E.D. Cal. 2022); Abdul- 22 Samed, 2025 WL 2099343, at *9. If Respondents fail to comply with this order, Petitioner 23 may seek further relief from the Court at that time. 24 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond 25 hearing within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are ORDERED to FILE a Notice 26 of Compliance within ten days of providing Petitioner with a bond hearing. The hearing 27 1 || set for January 30, 2026 is VACATED. Accordingly, the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue 2 Order to Show Cause Hearing is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court SHALL enter 3 judgment in Petitioner's favor and close this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: January 27, 2026 6 Hon. athe Cae 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 13 28 26-cv-0265-GPC-BLM