Selomon Gebremeskel Tesema v. Jeremy Casey, Warden Imperial Detention Center, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 2, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-01714
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SELOMON GEBREMESKEL TESEMA, Case No.: 26-CV-1714 JLS (DDL)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 v. AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 JEREMY CASEY, Warden Imperial

Detention Center, et al., 15 (ECF No. 5) Respondents. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Selomon Gebremeskel Tesema’s Amended Petition for 19 a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 5). Also before 20 the Court is Respondents’ Return to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Ret.,” ECF No. 21 7) and Petitioner’s Traverse (ECF No. 9). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 22 GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Petitioner, a citizen of Ethiopia, alleges that he has been detained by the United 25 States Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Immigration and Customs 26 Enforcement (“ICE”) division at the Imperial Regional Detention Center since July 4, 27 2025, when he entered the United States. Pet. at 2. Petitioner received a credible fear 28 interview on November 4, 2025, which he passed, and then applied for asylum. Id. at 3. 1 Petitioner has not received his final merits hearing but plans to appeal to the BIA, and 2 eventually the Ninth Circuit, if he is unsuccessful in relief because he faced extreme 3 persecution in Ethiopia based on his membership in the Amhara ethnic group. Id. at 2–3. 4 Respondents “do not oppose the [P]etition” and agree that the Court “should order that 5 Petitioner receive a bond hearing, where the government would bear the burden of proof 6 of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the 7 community or a risk of flight.” Ret. at 1. 8 LEGAL STANDARD 9 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 10 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of 11 his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial 12 body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the 13 court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales, 14 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 15 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising 16 independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention— 17 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 18 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 19 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 20 2018) (citations omitted). 21 DISCUSSION 22 “Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court have provided guidance regarding 23 the point at which an immigration detainee’s prolonged mandatory detention becomes 24 unconstitutional.” Amado v. United States Dep’t of Just., No. 25CV2687-LL(DDL), 2025 25 WL 3079052, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). However, “[n]early all district courts that 26 have considered [the constitutionality of prolonged mandatory detention] agree that 27 prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing, 28 will—at some point—violate the right to due process.” Singh v. Barr, 400 F. Supp. 3d 1 1005 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (cleaned up) 2 (collecting cases). In determining whether detention has become unreasonable, courts 3 evaluate factors including “the total length of detention to date, the likely duration of future 4 detention, and the delays in the removal proceedings caused by the petitioner and the 5 government.” Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022). Some courts 6 also consider the conditions of detention and the likelihood that the removal proceedings 7 will result in a final order of removal. See, e.g, Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F. Supp. 3d 1090, 8 1094 (S.D. Cal. 2025). 9 The Court finds that Petitioner has established he is entitled to a bond hearing. 10 Petitioner’s length of detention, nearly nine months, without a bond hearing weighs in 11 Petitioner’s favor. Courts have found detention of similar lengths without a bond hearing 12 weighs towards a finding that detention has become unreasonable. See, e.g., Guatam v. 13 Corr. Corp of Am., No. 3:25-CV-3600-JES-DEB, 2026 WL 25846, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 14 2026) (finding that one-year detention weighed in favor of granting a bond hearing); 15 Sadeqi, 809 F. Supp. 3d at 1095 (finding that eleven month detention without a bond 16 hearing “absent meaningful rebuttal by [r]espondents” was unreasonable and violated due 17 process); Amado, 2025 WL 3079052, at *5 (“Courts have found detention over seven 18 months without a bond hearing weighs toward a finding that it is unreasonable.”). The 19 length of detention therefore favors Petitioner. 20 As to the likely duration of future detention, Petitioner argues that he “has reason to 21 anticipate significant future detention” since he has yet to have his merits hearing, at which 22 point his asylum petition will be decided, subject to an appeal process that could go on for 23 another undetermined amount of time. Pet. at 8–9. The Court agrees, since Respondents 24 “cannot predict with any degree of confidence when the BIA appeal will be resolved.” 25 Masood v. Barr, No. 19-CV-07623-JD, 2020 WL 95633, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2020). 26 Respondents do not oppose the Petition. Ret. at 1. Therefore, the likely duration of future 27 detention weighs in Petitioner’s favor. 28 l Delay in removal proceedings is neutral since the record does not suggest delay by 2 ||Respondents nor Petitioner. See generally Pet.; Ret. Balancing the discussed factors, the 3 ||Court concludes that Petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged, and 4 || therefore, Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing. 5 CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART! Petitioner’s Amended 7 || Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 5), and ORDERS Respondents to provide 8 || Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing within fourteen (14) days before a neutral 9 immigration judge in which the government bears the burden of establishing by clear and 10 || convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk if released. 11 |/If no hearing occurs within fourteen days of this Order, Petitioner shall be released from 12 || Respondents’ custody. 13 The Parties SHALL file a Joint Status Report by April 23, 2026, informing the Court 14 || of the outcome of the hearing. The Clerk SHALL close the file. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: April 2, 2026

on. Janis L. Sammartino 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a7lo0002~2~— 2g ||! The Court declines to address the issues raised by Petitioner regarding the neutrality of immigration courts generally.