Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-03878

#1

Jul 06, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Serigo Albarran, Patrick Divver, Christopher J. LaRose, Todd M. Lyons, Mark Wayne Mullin ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 170558.), filed by Elshad Suleymanov. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Letter, # 3 Index of Attachments and Exhibits, # 4 Attachements A-C, # 5 Petitioner Declaration, # 6 Exhibit - Appendix 2.2.A - ICE Custody Classification Worksheet, # 7 Receipt)The new case number is 3:26-cv-3878-JO-SBC. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu are assigned to the case.(ggv) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

#2

Jul 07, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts the Standard Procedures for Immigration Habeas Petitions from Chief Judge Order No. 144 with the following modifications: The government's return shall identify and address any individualized concerns regarding Petitioner's danger to the community or flight risk, including the factual basis for any such concerns. Petitioner's optional traverse shall be due within three days of the government's return. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the petition for July 30, 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, 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 7/7/2026. (mk) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 07/07/2026)

Jul 07, 2026

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

#3

Jul 08, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Jul 14, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

Jul 27, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Elshad Suleymanov filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his prolonged detention without a bond hearing as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition.. On June 19, 2025, Petitioner entered the United States to seek asylum and was immediately detained by immigration officials. Dkt. 1-5 at 1; Dkt 4-1 at 9. On June 17, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed to Azerbaijan and denied all other relief. Dkt. 4-1 at 2-5. On June 18, 2026, Petitioner filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), which remains pending. Dkt. 1-5 at 1. Meanwhile, Petitioner has remained in immigration custody without a bond hearing for over thirteen months. See Dkt. 1.2. For the reasons stated in Faizi v. Larose, No. 25-CV-02974-JO-MSB, 2026 WL 1112035, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026), the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenges to the constitutionality and legality of his current detention.3. For the reasons stated in Faizi, No. 25-CV-02974-JO-MSB, 2026 WL 1112035, *3-*5, the Court examines whether, notwithstanding statutory authorization, Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause. As explained in Faizi, the Court considers the likely duration of detention---both elapsed and anticipated---and whether Petitioner has delayed proceedings in bad faith. See id. Here, Petitioner has been detained for over thirteen months, and his immigration proceedings remain pending before the BIA. See Dkt. 1-5 at 1-2. Further appeal from either side would extend detention by months or years, 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. Respondents argue that the government has an interest in detaining Petitioner because he is a flight risk. See Dkt. 4 at 1-2. While flight risk may justify Petitioner's detention following a bond hearing, it does not justify the denial of a bond hearing.4. For the reasons stated in Mubanga v. Mullin, No. 26-CV-02565-JO-AHG, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2026 WL 1945743 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2026), the Court finds that the appropriate remedy is release. If the government believes that Petitioner presents a flight risk or a danger warranting continued detention, it must first hold a bond hearing to justify that detention.The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 6. 1Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 7/27/2026. (mk) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 07/27/2026)

#6

Jul 27, 2026

Order

Jul 27, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#7

Jul 28, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#8

Jul 29, 2026

Notice (Other)

#9

Aug 14, 2026

Mail Returned