Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Otar JAMALASHVILI, Case No.: 26-cv-0961-AGS-DEB 5 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RETURN 6 v. 7 Kristi NOEM, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 11 Petitioner Otar Jamalashvili seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 12 to free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that 13 is sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules Governing Section 14 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if 15 it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 16 entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 2254 17 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit 18 “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 19 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any 20 potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 21 In January 2024, Jamalashvili, a “Georgian national” who has “a Permanent 22 Resident card in [the] USA,” “arrived in the United States.” (ECF 1, at 2; ECF 1-2, at 1; 23 ECF 1-4, at 1.) Roughly two years later, on “January 8, 2026,” he was “taken into 24 immigration custody” while “doing delivery work on a truck.” (ECF 1, at 7.) He now 25 challenges his “continued civil immigration detention without any neutral, individualized 26 custody hearing” as a violation of his “due process” rights. (Id. at 9 (cleaned up).) This is 27 implicitly a challenge to the government’s application of the mandatory custody provisions 28 of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) rather than the discretionary 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) provisions— 1 || which authorize release on bond or conditional parole. 2 This challenge merits a response. The two Courts of Appeals to address this question 3 || disagreed about how to interpret the issue. Compare Castanon-Nava v. United States Dep’t 4 ||of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060, 1062 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding “on this 5 || preliminary [motion-to-stay] record” that plaintiffs who are “unlawfully already in the 6 || United States” are not “subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)”), with 7 || Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, _ F.4th _, 2026 WL 323330, at *1 8 || (Sth Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (holding that, under § 1225(b)(2)(A), petitioners who entered the 9 || United States “illegally many years ago” must “be detained” without a bond hearing). But 10 petitioners have nonetheless obtained habeas relief in functionally identical cases. 11 ||See, e.g., Barco Mercado v. Francis, __ F. Supp. 3d. __, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 12 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362” 13 || opinions to address this issue, the petitioners “prevailed, either on a preliminary or final 14 || basis,” and these cases were “decided by over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty 15 || different courts’’). 16 In addition, respondents have routinely conceded these claims when brought by 17 those—like petitioner—who seem to be members of the Bond Eligible Class certified in 18 || Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM, __ F.Supp.3d —_, 2025 WL 19 ||3713987 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). So, by Friday, February 20, 2026, the government is 20 || ordered to file a brief stating whether it: (1) agrees petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. 21 || § 1226 and (2) intends to concede petitioner’s right to a bond hearing under that authority. 22 respondents do not concede, they must answer the petition by February 25, 2026. 23 || Dated: February 18, 2026 25 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 27 28