Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Erfan Case No.: 26-cv-0953-AGS-MMP AGHAMOHAMMADITAJIBIYOUK, 5 ORDER REQUIRING RETURN Petitioner, 6 v. 7 Kristi NOEM, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 11 Petitioner Erfan Aghamohammaditajibiyouk seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 12 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make 13 out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules 14 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing 15 summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 16 the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules 17 Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the 18 relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” 19 Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a 20 petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary 21 dismissal[.]” Id. 22 In April 2024, Aghamohammaditajibiyouk, “a native and citizen of Iran,” entered 23 the United States “without authorization.” (ECF 1, at 3.) More than a year later, on 24 “July 6, 2025,” he was “arrested” and detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 25 (Id.) He is still in custody and asserts that his ongoing detention violates his “due process” 26 rights. (Id.) But his immigration case’s posture complicates his claim. On “November 25, 27 2025,” an immigration judge “denied his application for relief and ordered him removed 28 from the United States to Iran.” (Id.) If that were the end of the story, this petition would 1 ||be premature because it has been less than the post-removal-order “period of 90 days” 2 ||during which the government “shall detain” the petitioner. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A), 3 ||(a)(2)(A). But he has “appealed the removal order,” or at least is attempting to do so 4 through a “motion to reopen” with “the Board of Immigration Appeals.” (ECF 1, at 3.) If 5 || he were to successfully reopen his case, that would vacate the final removal order and this 6 || case would likely come down to whether his re-detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225, 7 ||which imposes mandatory detention upon “arriving aliens,” or 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which 8 || authorizes release on bond or conditional parole. 9 So, this challenge merits an answer. The two Courts of Appeals to address the 10 |/statutory question that would likely arise disagreed about how to interpret the issue. 11 || Compare Castanion-Nava v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060, 12 |}1062 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding “on this preliminary [motion-to-stay] record” that 13 || plaintiffs who are “unlawfully already in the United States” are not “subject to mandatory 14 detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)”), with Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, 15 || F4th , 2026 WL 323330, at *1 (Sth Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (holding that, under 16 || § 1225(b)(2)(A), petitioners who entered the United States “illegally many years ago” must 17 ||‘‘be detained” without a bond hearing). But most petitioners have nonetheless obtained 18 ||habeas relief in functionally identical cases. See, e.g., Barco Mercado vy. Francis, 19 |] F.Supp. □□□ , No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 □□□□□□□□□ 20 || Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362” opinions to address this issue, the 21 || petitioners “prevailed, either on a preliminary or final basis,” and these cases were “decided 22 over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty different courts”). 23 By February 23, 2026, the government must answer. Any reply by the petitioner is 24 || due February 27, 2026, and the Court will hold a hearing on March 3, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. 25 Dated: February 17, 2026 27 Hon. rew G. Schopler 28 United States District Judge