Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01458

#1

Mar 07, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Pamela Bondi, Daniel A. Brightman, Christopher J. Larose, Todd Lyons, Daren Margolin, Kristi Noem ( Filing fee DUE.), filed by Khalid Hakimi. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1458-JO-MMP. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit are assigned to the case. (Nicholas Pal)(anh) (Entered: 03/08/2026)

#2

Mar 07, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Khalid Hakimi. (Attachments: # 1 Evidence in support of TRO and Habeas)(anh) (Entered: 03/08/2026)

#3

Mar 08, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On March 7, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for TRO requesting injunctive relief. Dkt. 1. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to serve Respondents with the habeas petition and TRO motion [Dkts. 1, 2] by 5:00 PM on March 11, 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 March 19, 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 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 03/08/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/08/2026)

Mar 08, 2026

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

#4

Mar 10, 2026

Affidavit of Service

#5

Mar 16, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Mar 19, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#7

Mar 20, 2026

Traverse to Petition for Writ of H/C

#8

Mar 25, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Khalid Hakimi filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1 ("Pet."); Dkt. 7. The government filed a non-opposition to Petitioners request for release. Dkt. 6. 1. On July 20, 2024, Petitioner entered the United States pursuant to a CBP One appointment to seek asylum and was immediately detained by immigration officials. See Pet. ¶ 2; Dkt. 2-1 at 3-8 ("Decl.") ¶ 3. That same day, he was released on humanitarian parole pending removal proceedings. See Pet. ¶¶ 2-3; Decl. ¶ 3; Dkt. 2-1 at 10, 18. On August 20, 2024, an immigration judge dismissed Petitioners removal proceedings, and Petitioner affirmatively applied for asylum and was granted work authorization. Pet. ¶¶ 4-7. On January 9, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained Petitioner near his home during an enforcement operation where the intended target was Petitioners brother. Id. ¶ 8; Decl. ¶¶ 11-14. He has been detained without a bond hearing at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since that time. Pet. ¶ 22; Decl. ¶¶ 17-21. 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. 3. The Court further finds that the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking his release on humanitarian parole without an individualized determination and written notice that he had violated the conditions of his release. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 321 (1976) (due process analysis considers (1) "the private interest that will be affected by the [government] action"; (2) "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards"; and (3) "the Government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail."). Here, Petitioner acquired a protectable liberty interest on July 20, 2024, when he was granted humanitarian parole for the purpose of seeking asylum pursuant to U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). See Dkt. 2 at 12; Dkt. 2-1 at 10. Under the governing statute and regulations, Petitioner held a protectable interest in remaining at liberty absent changes rendering him a security risk or a risk of absconding, the completion of his asylum proceedings, or a determination that humanitarian reasons and public benefit no longer warranted his continued presence in the country. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e); Y-Z-L-H v. Bostock, 792 F.Supp.3d 1123, 1144-45 (D. Or. 2025). The absence of any individualized determination significantly risked erroneously depriving Petitioner of his liberty interest, and the government has offered no evidence that the burdens of providing such process would outweigh this substantial liberty interest. Because the Court finds that Petitioner has been subjected to unconstitutional detention since his arrest on January 9, 2026, it grants his petition for habeas corpus and orders his immediate release on the same conditions of his prior grant of humanitarian parole.The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 9. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 03/25/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#9

Mar 25, 2026

Order

Mar 25, 2026

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

#10

Mar 27, 2026

Status Report