Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01289

#1

Mar 01, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Pamela Jo Bondi, Todd M. Lyons, Kristi Noem, Jesus Rocha, No Fee Required, filed by Desmond Achalefac Acha. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1289-JO-MSB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg are assigned to the case. (Lopez, Zandra)(anh) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#2

Mar 01, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Desmond Achalefac Acha. (anh) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#3

Mar 02, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting injunctive relief and motion for temporary restraining order. Dkts. 1, 2. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to serve Respondents with the habeas petition [Dkt. 1] by 5:00 PM on March 4, 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 Monday, March 16, 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 3/2/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

Mar 02, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#4

Mar 03, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#5

Mar 03, 2026

Notice (Other)

#6

Mar 16, 2026

Response - Other

#7

Mar 18, 2026

Expedite

#8

Mar 19, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Desmond Achalefac Acha, a Cameroon citizen who came to the United States to seek asylum, requests habeas relief from his prolonged detention following a final removal order. See Dkt. 1. He also challenges the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") third-country removal procedures on grounds that they deny him adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to seek protection before removal to a third country where he may face persecution or torture. Id. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition.1. On January 5, 2025, Petitioner entered the United States illegally to seek asylum. Dkt. 6-1 P. 6. He was immediately detained by immigration officials and placed in expedited removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Id. After an asylum officer determined that Petitioner had a credible fear of persecution if returned to Cameroon, Department of Homeland Security ("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. Id. P. 7; see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a; 8 C.F.R. § 208.30. On September 10, 2025, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") ordered him removed but granted withholding of removal to Cameroon, the only country designated in the removal order, and the order became final that day. Id. P. 8; Dkt. 6 at 2. Because the IJ granted withholding relief as to Cameroon, DHS has sought a third country for Petitioner's removal. Dkt. 6-1 P. 9. In the meantime, Petitioner has remained detained for over six months since the final removal order.2. Jurisdiction: For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) does not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality of his current detention. As courts have consistently found, a challenge to continued detention pending removal does not intrude on the government's discretion to decide "when" or "whether" to execute a removal order and falls outside § 1252(g)'s scope. See Phakeokoth v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-02817-RBM-SBC, 2025 WL 3124341, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2025); Esmaeili v. Noem, No. 26-CV-0203-GPC-JLB, 2026 WL 240661 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026).3. Claim One (Zadvydas): The Court finds that Petitioner's continued detention violates his substantive due process rights under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (after the six-month presumptively reasonable period following a final removal order, continued detention is lawful only if the government rebuts the noncitizen's showing that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future). Petitioner has been detained for more than six months since the final removal order, and the government has made almost no progress toward removal to a third country. Dkt. 6-1 PP. 9-20. ERO San Diego Field Office has been advised on four separate occasions, on (1) October 13, 2025; (2) November 4, 2025; (3) January 5, 2026; and (4) February 16, 2026, that its request for Petitioner's third country removal remains pending, but no third country has been identified. See id. Respondents concede that there is no significant likelihood that removal is reasonably foreseeable. Dkt. 6 at 2. Given the government's failure to identify a third country despite repeated inquiries and the government's concession, the Court finds that Petitioner has shown---and the government has not rebutted---that removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Therefore, Petitioner's continued detention is unlawful under Zadvydas, and he is entitled to immediate release.4. Claim Two (Third Country Removal): The Court finds that Petitioner's third country removal claim is ripe for review. ICE has an outstanding request to identify a third country for Petitioner and is actively searching for one, placing him at a concrete, particularized and actual risk of eventual third country removal under current DHS procedures. See Geo Grp., Inc. v. Newsom, 50 F.4th 745, 753 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)) (to satisfy Article III standing, an injury "must be 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not "conjectural" or "hypothetical'"). Further, for the reasons stated in Esmail v. Noem, No. 2:25-CV-08325-WLH-RAO, 2025 WL 3030589, *6-*7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025) and Kumar v. Wamsley, No. C25-2055-KKE, --- F.Supp3d. ---, 2025 WL 3204724, *4-*5 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 17, 2025), the Court finds that current DHS third-country removal procedures violate Petitioner's due process rights because they (1) do not require DHS to affirmatively ask whether he fears removal to the designated third country and (2) permit removal within 24 hours of providing notice of the designated third country. The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 9. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 3/19/2026. (mk) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#9

Mar 19, 2026

Order

#10

Mar 19, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Mar 19, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#11

Mar 23, 2026

Notice (Other)