Reza Aghajavadyha v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Jesus Rocha, Acting Field Office Director, San Diego Field Office; Christopher Larose, Warden at Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the petitioner's re-detention by ICE after a 20-year period of release. The court granted the petition, finding the government's notice of re-detention insufficient because it failed to specify the 'changed circumstances' required by regulation, and ordered the petitioner's release.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted on Count One“The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted on count one.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 8 C.F.R. § 241.13, which requires ICE to provide written notice of the reasons for re-detention, specifically the changed circumstances. The order recites that the government's notice was 'completely silent' on what those changes were. Under the cited regulation and the precedent of *Tran v. Noem*, a conclusory assertion without specific facts is insufficient to support re-detention. The decision follows logically from the regulatory requirements and the facts presented. |
Petition denied as moot“The petition is otherwise denied as moot.” | agree with court The order notes that Respondents released the Petitioner following the earlier TRO. Since the petitioner is no longer detained, the remaining claims for relief regarding current detention are moot. This is a standard procedural disposition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It identifies the specific regulatory provisions at issue, cites a recent district court decision (*Tran*) that interprets those provisions in the same context, and applies the facts (the conclusory nature of the notice) to the legal standard. The reasoning directly answers the motion by showing why the government failed to meet its burden under the regulations.
Opinion
1 2
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 REZA AGHAJAVADYHA, No. 25cv3246-BTM-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; 15 PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, 16 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; JESUS ROCHA, Acting Field Office 17 Director, San Diego Field Office; CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden at 18 Otay Mesa Detention Center, 19 Respondents.
21 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Reza Aghajavadyha’s petition for a writ of 22 habeas corpus. 23 Petitioner was detained at a “check-in” with immigration officials on November 6, 24 2025. Petitioner came to the United States from Iran in 1997 or 1998. Petitioner was 25 ordered removed in 2003 but could not be removed to Iran. He was released from 26 custody and had been living under supervision without incident for about twenty years. 27 On November 24, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Petitioner’s motion for a 28 temporary restraining order. After the hearing, the Government submitted the written 1 | notification provided to Petitioner on his re-detention. The Court found that the notice 2 | was likely insufficient, that Petitioner was likely to succeed on the merits, and that the 3 | remaining factors favored a TRO. The Court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner, 4 | and Respondents released Petitioner. The Court granted Respondents until December 12 5 | to respond to the petition. Respondents did submit a return. 6 Before being re-detained, ICE was required to determine that Petitioner was likely 7 | to be removed based on changed circumstances. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(4)(2); Tran v. Noem, 8 | No. 25-cv-02391-BTM, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211542, *4-9 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025) 9 | (discussing requirements for re-detention). Petitioner was also entitled to written notice 10 | of the reasons for his re-detention. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(1)(3); Tran, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11 | 211542, *7-8. Petitioner was also entitled to a prompt interview with an open minded 12 | officer to consider Petitioner’s rebuttal to detention. 8 C.F.R. § 241.13()(3); Tran, 2025 13 | U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211542, *8-9. 14 The written notification submitted by the Government states in conclusory fashion 15 | that there are changed circumstances in the case. But the notice is completely silent on 16 | what the changes are. Petitioner thus lacked notice of what the changed circumstances 17 | were warranting his re-detention. Because Petitioner lacked notice of what the changed 18 | circumstances were, he had no ability to challenge whether the circumstances have in fact 19 | changed. In short, the Government’s conclusory assertion of changed circumstances was 20 | insufficient. Petitioner’s re-detention was unlawful. 21 The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted on count one. The petition is 22 | otherwise denied as moot. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the writ. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | Dated: December 15, 2025 , 25 Honora#le Barry Ted Moskowit 26 United States District Judge 27 28