Siraj Ali v. Christopher Chestnut, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 1, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-02212
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 SIRAJ ALI, Case No. 1:26-cv-02212-KES-SAB-HC

10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF 11 v. HABEAS CORPUS, DENY 12 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT, et al., RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND ORDER PETITIONER’S IMMEDIATE 13 Respondents. RELEASE

14 (ECF Nos. 1, 11) 15 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 17 I. 18 BACKGROUND 19 Petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan who fled Pakistan on or about June 21, 2024, and 20 entered the United States on or about September 1, 2024. In October 2024, Petitioner was issued 21 a notice to appear and released from immigration custody on an order of parole. (ECF No. 1 at 6; 22 ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-3; ECF No. 11-2 at 2.1) On December 17, 2025, Petitioner was re-detained. 23 (ECF No. 11-2 at 2.) 24 On March 19, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his 25 immigration detention in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 26 (ECF No. 1.) On March 20, 2026, the petition was transferred to this Court. (ECF Nos. 4, 5.) On 27 April 13, 2026, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 11.) On April 15, 2026, 1 Petitioner filed an opposition. (ECF No. 12.) To date, no reply in support of the motion to 2 dismiss has been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. 3 II. 4 DISCUSSION 5 “Respondents maintain that Petitioner is an ‘applicant for admission’ under 8 U.S.C. 6 § 1225(a)(1) who is subject to mandatory detention by ICE under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii)” 7 and “does not possess a right to freedom from immigration detention in any form other than the 8 form provided by Congress.” (ECF No. 11 at 1, 2.) Such arguments have been rejected by this 9 Court in numerous previous decisions. See, e.g., Clene C.D. v. Robbins, No. 1:25-CV-01463- 10 KES-SKO (HC), 2026 WL 84302 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2026); R.A.N.O. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-cv- 11 01535-KES-EPG (HC), 2026 WL 40507 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2026); Bilal A. v. Wofford, No. 1:25- 12 CV-01715-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3648366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2025); Elmer Joel M. C. v. 13 Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01622-KES-CDB (HC), 2025 WL 3501200 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2025); 14 Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, No. 1:25-cv-01471-KES-SAB (HC), 2025 WL 3254999 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 15 22, 2025); W.V.S.M. v. Wofford, No. 1:25-CV-01489-KES-HBK (HC), 2025 WL 3236521 16 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025). 17 As Respondents have not made any new legal arguments and have not identified any 18 factual or legal issues in this case that would distinguish it from the Court’s prior decisions set 19 forth above, the Court recommends granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus for the reasons 20 addressed in those prior orders. 21 Alternatively, Respondents argue that the Court should hold the matter in abeyance 22 pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, No. 25-6842. (ECF No. 23 11 at 2.) In Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 802 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (W.D. Wash. 2025), the 24 district court granted summary judgment “to the Bond Denial Class on their claims that their 25 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful.” Id. at 1336. The Bond Denial Class is 26 defined as: 27 [A]ll noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection, (2) 1 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), § 1225(b)(1), or § 1231 at the time the noncitizen is scheduled for or requests a bond hearing. 2 3 Rodriguez Vazquez, 802 F. Supp. 3d at 1336. The district court declared “that Bond Denial Class 4 members are detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory detention under 5 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)” and that “the Tacoma Immigration Court's practice of denying bond to 6 Bond Denial Class members on the basis of § 1225(b)(2) violates the Immigration and 7 Nationality Act.” Rodriguez Vazquez, 802 F. Supp. 3d at 1336. 8 Although the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Rodriguez Vazquez may provide guidance on 9 the application of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226, the Court is skeptical the decision will impact the 10 Court’s conclusion that Petitioner has a protected liberty interest that arises from his prior release 11 from immigration custody. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Respondents’ alternative 12 request hold the matter in abeyance pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Rodriguez Vazquez 13 v. Bostock be denied. 14 III. 15 RECOMMENDATION 16 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 17 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be GRANTED. 18 2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) be DENIED. 19 3. Respondents be directed to release Petitioner immediately. 20 4. Respondents be enjoined and restrained from re-detaining Petitioner unless they 21 demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a 22 neutral decisionmaker, that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that 23 his physical custody is legally justified. 24 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 25 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 26 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 27 FOURTEEN (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court, limited to fifteen (15) pages in length, including any 1 | exhibits. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 2 | Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days 3 | after service of the objections. The assigned District Judge will then review the Magistrate 4 | Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file 5 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 6 | Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 7 | 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 8 , | IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ae 10 | Dated: _ May 1, 2026 STANLEY A. BOONE 1] United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28