Hekmat v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOWFIQ HEKMAT HEKMAT, Case No.: 25-cv-01934-AJB-SBC Petitioner, 12 ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE TO v. PETITION AND SETTING BRIEFING 13 SCHEDULE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 14 HOMELAND SECURITY, (Doc. No. 1) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Towfiq Hekmat Hekmat’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 18 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). (Doc. No. 1.) On July 28, 2025, 19 Petitioner, proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed the instant Petition against the 20 U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Id.) This order follows. 21 “A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall 22 forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the 23 writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or 24 person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. “Habeas petitions under § 2241 25 are subject to the screening requirements that apply to § 2254 petitions.” Portillo-Majano 26 v. Napolitano, No. ED CV 10-01444, 2010 WL 3787753, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2010); 27 see Habeas Rule 1(b) (stating that “[t]he district court may apply any or all of these rules 28 to a habeas corpus petition not covered by” § 2254). Under Habeas Rule 4, the Court “must 1 promptly examine” the petition and “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached 2 exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must 3 dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the prisoner.” See Habeas Rule 4. 4 Petitioner, a native of Afghanistan and detainee at the Imperial Regional Detention 5 Facility in Calexico, California, alleges he was denied an appeal before an immigration 6 judge following a negative determination on his request for relief under the Convention 7 Against Torture (CAT). (Doc. No. 1.) The Petition alleges he was “tortured by Taliban 8 forces,” “Taliban forces cut [him] with a knife,” and the Taliban wanted to “kill [him] 9 because [he] was helping . . . local police.” (Doc. No. 1 at 6.)1 Petitioner alleges he 10 provided this information to an asylum officer during a CAT interview but received a 11 negative determination. (Id. at 2, 6.) Petitioner wishes to appeal this determination before 12 an immigration judge. (Id.) However, Petitioner provides that he has been told that “there 13 is no such review for your case,” and “[y]ou will be deported back to Afghanistan.” (Id. at 14 6.) Petitioner alleges that he has repeatedly requested to have the negative CAT 15 determination reviewed before an immigration judge but has been denied such an appeal 16 in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 208.31. 17 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted 18 at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 19 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 20 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). 21 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 22 1. The Clerk of the Court must SERVE a copy of this Order and the Petition on 23 the Respondent by serving the United States Attorney for the Southern District of 24 California, or his authorized representative. 25 26 27 1 Citations to the record refer to the CM/ECF system page number stamped in blue at the top of each page 28 1 2. Respondent must file a response to the Petition on or before September 5, 2 2025, showing cause as to why the Petition should not be granted. The response must 3 include all documentation, including orders and transcripts, relevant to the determination 4 ||of the issues raised in the Petition. The response must address the necessity of an 5 || evidentiary hearing on the Petition. Respondent must serve a copy of their response upon 6 || Petitioner concurrently with the filing. 7 3. Petitioner may, but is not required, to file a traverse in support of his Petition 8 |/no later than October 3, 2025. 9 After briefing is complete, the Court will take the matter under submission and 10 || without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the Parties are notified 11 || otherwise. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 8, 2025 © ¢ 14 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28