Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01274

#1

Feb 27, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Pamela Bondi, Jeremy Casey, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-20841923.), filed by Attaullah Khan. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1274-JO-MMP. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit are assigned to the case. (Ashraf, Shahzada)(dde) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#2

Feb 27, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 27, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting injunctive relief. Dkt. 1. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to serve Respondents with the habeas petition [Dkt. 1] by 5:00 PM on March 3, 2026, and file proof of service. Petitioner must also serve the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California by a method prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1)(A) by that date and file proof of service.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 Thursday, March 12, 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, March 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 parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM on the day before the hearing to determine whether such an order has issued and the hearing has been vacated.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. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 2/27/2026. (mk) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Feb 27, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Mar 02, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Mar 02, 2026

Certificate of Service

#5

Mar 12, 2026

Response to Petition

#6

Mar 12, 2026

Supplemental Briefing

#7

Mar 13, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Attaullah Khan, a citizen of Pakistan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention as a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition. 1. On December 27, 2024, Petitioner entered the United States illegally and was immediately detained by immigration officials, who determined he had a credible fear of persecution if returned to Pakistan. Dkt. 1 PP. 15, 16. As a result, Department of Homeland Security placed Petitioner into standard removal proceedings under § 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and continued to hold him in custody pending those proceedings. Id. P. 17; see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a; 8 C.F.R. § 208.30. On November 17, 2025, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied Petitioner asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and ordered him removed to Pakistan. Id.; Dkt. 5 at 2. On December 2, 2025, Petitioner appealed the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). Dkt. 1 P. 18; Dkt. 5-5 at 2. As a result, Petitioner's removal proceedings remain pending to this day. Id. 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 Dkt. 1. 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, and his appeal of the IJ's decision remains pending before the BIA. Dkt. 1 P. 18. The appeal process could extend detention by at least several months, such that the total period of confinement could approach or exceed two years. Further, nothing in the record indicates that Petitioner has engaged in undue or bad faith delay. Although Petitioner sought three adjournments, including to obtain counsel, those requests account for only around three months. This duration of civil detention without a bond hearing gravely risks the erroneous deprivation of Petitioner's 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."). 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. 8. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/13/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#8

Mar 13, 2026

Order

Mar 13, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#9

Mar 23, 2026

Declaration

#10

Apr 23, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#11

Apr 23, 2026

Enforce Judgment

Apr 23, 2026

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

#13

Apr 27, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#14

Apr 30, 2026

Reply - Other

May 07, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Set Hearings AND ~Util - Terminate Hearings

#16

May 11, 2026

Declaration