Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-00807

#1

Feb 09, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Gregory J. Archambeault, Pamela Bondi, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Christopher LaRose, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem (Filing fee $ 5, Fee Not Paid, IFP Filed.), filed by Qibao Lin. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-807-JO-DEB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher are assigned to the case.(ggv) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#2

Feb 09, 2026

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Qibao Lin. (ggv) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#3

Feb 12, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 12, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting injunctive relief. Dkt. 1. The Court ORDERS Respondents TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted by filing a written response no later than 5:00 PM on Monday, February 23, 2026. The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file, as exhibits to their response, the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records necessary for adjudication of this habeas petition, including all Department of Homeland Security records, immigration court documents, arrest or custody records, and any other materials pertaining to Petitioner's detention, processing, or removal proceedings. Unless Respondents concede that Petitioner is entitled to the complete relief requested in the habeas petition, Respondents must comply with this order by filing the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records.The Court SETS a hearing with oral argument for Thursday, February 26, 2026 at 9:30 AM. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing. The hearing will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. The Court ORDERS that Petitioner shall not be transferred out of this District unless Respondents provide advance notice of the intended move. Such notice shall be filed in writing on the docket in this proceeding and shall state the reason why Respondents believe that such a movement is necessary and should not be stayed pending further court proceedings. Once that notice has been docketed, Petitioner SHALL NOT be moved out of this District for a period of at least 48 hours from the time of that docketing. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this Order and the Petition [Dkt. 1] to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 2/12/2026. (mk) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

#4

Feb 12, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 12, 2026, Petitioner filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") using the Southern District of California's standard long-form IFP application. Dkt. 2. Civil Local Rule 3.2 requires a litigant seeking IFP status to submit an affidavit of assets demonstrating an inability to pay the filing fee or post the security required to maintain a civil action. Because Petitioner attests that he has no assets or income and has shown an inability to pay the $5 filing fee, the Court GRANTS the application to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 2/12/2026. (mk) (Entered: 02/12/2026)

Feb 12, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

Feb 12, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

#5

Feb 17, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Feb 19, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Feb 23, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#8

Feb 23, 2026

Order

#9

Feb 23, 2026

Financial Affidavit - CJA 23

#10

Feb 25, 2026

Filing Fee Received

#11

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Qibao Lin, a citizen of China proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his prolonged detention as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition. 1. On December 3, 2024, Petitioner entered the United States illegally to seek asylum. Dkt. 1 at 1; Dkt. 7, Ex. 1. He was immediately detained by immigration officials and placed in expedited removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Dkt. 7 at 2. On January 29, 2025, an asylum officer determined that Petitioner had a credible fear of persecution if returned to China. Id. As a result, DHS placed Petitioner into standard removal proceedings under § 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and continued to hold him in custody pending those proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a; see 8 CFR § 208.30; Dkt. 7 at 2. Petitioner's asylum application remains pending, and his merits hearing is scheduled for March 30, 2026. Dkt. 7 at 2. 2. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2–*7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality and legality of his current detention. See Pet. 3. For the reasons stated on the record in Raeva v. Mayorkas, No. 3:25-cv-03175, Dkts. 16, 17, the Court examines whether, notwithstanding statutory authorization, Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause. As explained in Raeva, the Court considers the likely duration of detention—both elapsed and anticipated—and whether Petitioner has delayed proceedings in bad faith. Here, Petitioner has been detained for over fourteen months as of the date of this order and has yet to receive his individual merits hearing. Dkt. 1 at 1; Dkt. 7, Ex. 1. Further appeals from either side would extend detention by at least several months, such that the total period of confinement could approach or exceed two years without any showing that Petitioner has delayed his proceedings in bad faith. This duration of civil detention without a bond hearing gravely risks the erroneous deprivation of Petitioners liberty interest, especially here when the record contains no evidence that he presents a danger to the community or a flight risk or that the government has another legitimate interest in his continued detention. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 994 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2025) ("Detention for its own sake... is not a legitimate government interest."). 4. The Court therefore finds that Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 12. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 02/25/2026. (rh) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#12

Feb 25, 2026

Order on Motion for Order

Feb 25, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Terminate Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#13

Mar 06, 2026

Notice (Other)