Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01676

#1

Mar 17, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Pamela Jo Bondi, Jeremy Casey, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Jesus Rocha, No Fee Required, filed by Natsnet Guesh Mrach. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1676-JO-DEB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher are assigned to the case. (Hartzler, Kara)(anh) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#2

Mar 17, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts with the following modification the Standard Procedures for Immigration Habeas Petitions from Chief Judge Order No. 144, available on the court's website: Any optional reply will be due 3 days after the government's opposition. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the Petition for April 2, 2026 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 4C. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing, which will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. Parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM the day before the hearing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 03/17/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

Mar 17, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Mar 20, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Mar 23, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

Mar 23, 2026

Traverse to Petition for Writ of H/C

#6

Mar 27, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Natsnet Guesh Mrach, an Eritrean citizen who came to the United States to seek asylum, seeks habeas relief from her prolonged detention following a final removal order. See Dkt. 1 ("Pet."). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition.1. On April 29, 2025, Petitioner entered the United States illegally to seek asylum and was immediately detained by immigration officials. Pet. at 2; Dkt. 1-2 ("Decl.") ¶¶ 1, 2. Asylum officers found that Petitioner did not have a credible fear of returning to Eritrea. Decl. ¶ 3. On October 3, 2025, an Immigration Judge ("IJ") affirmed the asylum officer's credible fear decision, and the order of removal became final that same day. Decl. ¶ 4. The government has not secured a travel document for Petitioner's removal, and Petitioner has remained detained for almost six months since the final removal order. See id.; Dkt. 4 at 1.2. 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 her 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. The Court further finds that Petitioner's continued detention violates her substantive due process rights under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (detention following a final removal order is presumptively reasonable for six months but becomes unlawful if the government fails to rebut a noncitizen's showing that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future). Although detention is mandatory during the initial 90-day removal period, the six-month presumption recognized in Zadvydas is rebuttable. See Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 384 ("Zadvydas did not hold that the statute authorizes detention until it approaches constitutional limits...."); Hoang Trinh v. Homan, 333 F.Supp.3d 984, 994 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (explaining that the "Supreme Court in Zadvydas outlined a 'guide' for approaching these detention challenges, 533 U.S. at 700-701, not a prohibition on claims challenging detention less than six months"). The government has continued to detain Petitioner since her removal order became final on October 3, 2025, yet concedes that removal is not reasonably foreseeable because they have not been able to acquire a travel document. Dkt. 4 at 1. Given the government's concession and the lack of a travel document necessary for removal, the Court finds that Petitioner has rebutted the Zadvydas presumption that detention may be reasonable for up to six months following a final removal order. Accordingly, because there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, Petitioner's detention is unlawful under Zadvydas, and she is entitled to immediate release.The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 7. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 03/27/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

#7

Mar 27, 2026

Order

Mar 27, 2026

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

#8

Mar 30, 2026

Declaration