Hashmat Faizi v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee challenging his detention. The court granted the petition in part, ordering an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven days, and denied the request for immediate release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus in part regarding the due process claim and the request for a bond hearing.“The Court GRANTS the petition as to the due process claim and request for a bond hearing before an immigration judge.” | agree with court The order cites Ninth Circuit precedent (Singh v. Holder and Hernandez v. Sessions) establishing that immigration detainees are entitled to an individualized bond hearing and that mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) cannot be used to deny such a hearing. The court's application of these specific precedents to order a hearing with the government bearing the burden of proof is consistent with the cited law. |
Denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus in part regarding the request for immediate release.“The Court DENIES the petition as to the request for immediate release.” | unsure The court provides no specific reasoning for denying immediate release other than the general statement that the petition is granted in part and denied in part. However, by ordering a bond hearing within seven days, the court provides a mechanism for release if the government fails to meet its burden, which is a standard procedural approach in these cases rather than an immediate release order. |
Ordering respondents to provide an individualized bond hearing within seven days.“Respondents, within seven (7) days of this order, shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge where the Government bears the burden of establishing that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk that cannot reasonably be addressed by bond or conditional release.” | agree with court This order directly implements the due process rights recognized in Singh v. Holder and Hernandez v. Sessions. The requirement that the government bears the burden of proof is consistent with the cited authorities. |
Ordering that if no bond hearing occurs within seven days, the petitioner shall be released.“If no hearing occurs within seven (7) days of this order, Petitioner shall be released from Respondents’ custody by noon on the eighth (8) day following this order.” | agree with court This is a standard enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with the court's order for a timely hearing. It is a reasonable procedural safeguard. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but relies on the correct and binding Ninth Circuit precedents (Singh and Hernandez) to support its ruling. It clearly states the relief granted and the procedural steps required for compliance. It does not address the specific facts of the petitioner's case in detail, but the legal standard applied is correct for this type of petition.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HASHMAT FAIZI, Case No.: 25-cv-02974-JO-MSB 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 v. CORPUS 15 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 20 For the reasons stated on the record, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES 21 IN PART the petition for writ of habeas corpus. [Dkt. 1]. The Court GRANTS the petition 22 as to the due process claim and request for a bond hearing before an immigration judge. 23 The Court DENIES the petition as to the request for immediate release. The Court 24 ORDERS as follows: 25 • Respondents, within seven (7) days of this order, shall provide Petitioner with 26 an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge where the 27 Government bears the burden of establishing that Petitioner is a danger to the 28 community or a flight risk that cannot reasonably be addressed by bond or l conditional release. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011). 2 Respondents SHALL NOT deny Petitioner’s bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1225(b)(2) requires mandatory detention. If continued detention is not 4 warranted, the immigration judge must consider Petitioner’s financial 5 circumstances and alternatives to bond in setting conditions of release. See 6 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 1000 (9th Cir. 2017). 7 e Respondents shall file a declaration attesting to the occurrence of the bond 8 hearing by the close of the next business day after the bond hearing. If no 9 hearing occurs within seven (7) days of this order, Petitioner shall be released 10 from Respondents’ custody by noon on the eighth (8) day following this order. 11 e If Petitioner is released because no bond hearing occurred, Respondents shall 12 not re-detain Petitioner without prior leave of this Court, in aid of this Court’s 13 continuing jurisdiction. All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. 14 The Court takes under submission the question of whether further relief is warranted. 15 16 17 || IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: November 13, 2025 20 J\— 1 Hyerable J insook Ohta United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28