Mohammad Sina Chehrazi v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Mohammad Chehrazi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention as a violation of the Due Process Clause. The court ordered the government to file an answer by February 23, 2026, and set a hearing for March 3, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring the government to file an answer to the habeas petition“So, by February 23, 2026, the government must answer.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, which requires that the petition be 'clearly not cognizable' or 'frivolous or incredible.' The court found that Chehrazi's claim—that prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing violates due process—is a recognized legal theory in the Ninth Circuit and other jurisdictions (citing Kydyrali v. Wolf). Because the petition has 'potential merit,' it does not meet the threshold for summary dismissal, and the government must be required to answer. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural standard for summary dismissal of a habeas petition and applies it to the facts. It cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Neiss) for the standard and persuasive district court authority (Kydyrali) to establish that the specific legal claim (due process violation for prolonged detention without bond hearing) is cognizable. The conclusion that the government must answer follows logically from the finding that the claim is not 'clearly not cognizable.'
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Mohammad Sina CHEHRAZI, Case No.: 26-cv-0957-AGS-BJW 5 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RETURN 6 v. 7 Kristi NOEM, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 11 Petitioner Mohammad Chehrazi seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 12 § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a 13 claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules Governing 14 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary 15 dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 16 is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 17 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules 18 permit “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 February 2025, Chehrazi, “a native and citizen of Iran,” “attempted to enter the 22 United States without authorization” and appears to have been detained since then. (ECF 1, 23 at 3.) Almost a year later, on “1/13/2026,” an immigration judge “denied his application 24 for relief and ordered him removed from the United States to Iran.” (Id.) But Chehrazi 25 “appealed the removal order, and his appeal is currently pending before the Board of 26 Immigration Appeals.” (Id.) He now asserts that his continued detention “violates the Due 27 Process Clause.” (Id.) 28 l This challenge warrants an answer. Some courts have concluded that prolonged 2 ||detention can violate due process even for those subject to mandatory detention under 3 U.S.C. § 1225(b). See, e.g., Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772 (S.D. Cal. 2020) 4 ||C‘[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across the country in concluding that an 5 |}unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized 6 ||bond hearing violates due process.”). So, by February 23, 2026, the government must 7 ||answer. Any reply by the petitioner is due February 27, 2026, and the Court will hold a 8 || hearing on March 3, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. 9 || Dated: February 17, 2026 11 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28