Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-02128

#1

Apr 03, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Warden Jeremy Casey ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 168311.), filed by Burhan Ali Hashi. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A - Medical History, # 3 Exhibit B - ICE and Warden, # 4 Receipt, # 5 Envelope)The new case number is 3:26-cv-2128-JO-BLM. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major are assigned to the case. Docket mailed to petitioner(tac) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#2

Apr 03, 2026

MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Burhan Ali Hashi. (tac) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#3

Apr 06, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts the Standard Procedures for this Immigration Habeas Petition from Chief Judge Order No. 144, which is available on the court's website with the following modification: Any optional reply will be due 3 days after the government's opposition. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the Petition for April 23, 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 4/6/2026. (mk) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 04/06/2026)

Apr 06, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#4

Apr 08, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#5

Apr 13, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#6

Apr 20, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Burhan Ali Hashi 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. Petitioner entered the United States on October 2, 2024, and was immediately detained by immigration officials, who have continued to hold him in custody pending his removal proceedings. Dkt. 1-3 at 1. On February 27, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed. Dkt. 1 at 7. Petitioner appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") on March 26, 2026, and his appeal remains pending to this day. Dkt. 1 at 7. As a result, Petitioner has remained in immigration custody without a bond hearing for over 18 months. 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. 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 18 months, and his appeal has been pending before the BIA for nearly a month. Dkt. 1 at 7. 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 of undue or bad faith delay by Petitioner. 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. 7. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/20/2026. (mk)(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 04/20/2026)

#7

Apr 20, 2026

Order

#8

Apr 20, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

Apr 20, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#9

Apr 29, 2026

Notice (Other)