Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-02758

#1

Apr 30, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Todd Blanche, Christopher LaRose, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Jesus Rocha, No Fee Required, filed by Aziz Moradi Rashid. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:26-cv-2758-JO-MSB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg are assigned to the case. (Jessie Agatstein)(anh) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#2

May 01, 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 May 21, 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 5/1/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/01/2026)

#3

May 01, 2026

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE(S) by Aziz Moradi Rashid of case(s) 26-cv-116-RSH-DDL . (Agatstein, Jessica)(rxc). (Entered: 05/01/2026)

May 01, 2026

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

#4

May 04, 2026

Response - Other

#5

May 08, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

May 08, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#7

May 11, 2026

Amended Document (NOT Motion)

#8

May 19, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Aziz Moradi Rashid, an Iranian citizen who came to the United States to seek asylum, seeks habeas relief from his prolonged detention following a final removal order. See Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition.1. An immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed in 2008. Dkt. 1 at 2-3. Because the government was unable to remove Petitioner to Iran, it released him under an order of supervision in January 2010. Id. at 3. Fifteen years later, in May 2025, the government took Petitioner back into custody and, in early October 2025, reinstated his previous removal order. Id. Petitioner has remained detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since then. Id.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 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. 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). Although a deportation officer represented on January 23, 2026 that the government located a copy of Petitioner's Iranian identification in September 2025, requested travel documents from the Iranian Embassy in December 2025, and routinely obtains travel documents for Iranian nationals, see Rashid v. Noem et al., 26-cv-116-RSH-DDL, Petitioner has now been detained for around seven months since the reinstatement of his removal order, and there is no indication that the government obtained the travel documents necessary for his removal. Further, the government concedes that it is unable to establish a significant likelihood of Petitioner's removal in the reasonably foreseeable. Dkt. 7 at 1. In light of that concession, and the lack of any evidence that the government has made any further progress toward removal, 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. Because there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Court finds that Petitioner's detention is unlawful under Zadvydas and orders his immediate release.The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 9. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 5/19/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

#9

May 19, 2026

Order

#10

May 19, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

May 19, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#11

May 21, 2026

Notice (Other)