Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Kamrul HASAN, Case No.: 26-cv-1025-AGS-BJW 5 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RETURN 6 v. 7 WARDEN of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 11 Self-represented petitioner Kamrul Hasan 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 Hasan is a noncitizen from Bangladesh, seeking asylum after being “threatened by 23 the Bangladesh government [] for his political beliefs.” (ECF 1, at 7.) He asserts that he 24 “entered [the United States] without inspection” and “was not apprehended upon arrival.” 25 (Id. at 3.) The exact details of petitioner’s claim are murky: he alleges both that he entered 26 “over 2 years ago” (id. at 3) and that he entered “on December 3, 2024,” (id. at 7.). He also 27 alleges both that he “was not apprehended upon arrival” and that he has been “incarcerated” 28 since he “entered the United States.” (Id. at 3, 7.) Petitioner seems to assert two separate 1 challenges. First, he asserts that he is being detained unlawfully because “the mandatory[] 2 detention provision of [8 U.S.C.] § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to people like [p]etitioner” 3 (id. at 10), and his detention is instead governed by “8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)” (id. at 4). Thus, 4 he is “seek[ing] enforcement of [his] rights [a] as member[] of the Bond Denial Class 5 certified in Maldonado Bautista.” (Id. at 2); see Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873- 6 SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3713987, at *32 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) (holding that “all members 7 of the Bond Eligible Class,” including “[a]ll noncitizens . . . who [] have entered [] without 8 inspection,” are “entitled to . . . declaratory relief” directing a bond hearing under 9 § 1226(a)). Second, he seems to assert that, even if his detention is governed by § 1225, 10 “[d]ue process requires that the government provide bond hearings to noncitizens facing 11 prolonged detention.” (Id. at 11.) Because he’s been detained for “fourteen months,” he 12 claims, his detention has been sufficiently prolonged as to violate his “due process” rights. 13 (Id. at 2, 11.) 14 Though it is not a model of clarity, this challenge merits a response. The two Courts 15 of Appeals to address the first question, regarding the difference between § 1225 and 16 § 1226, disagreed about how to interpret the issue. Compare Castañon-Nava v. United 17 States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060, 1062 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding 18 “on this preliminary [motion-to-stay] record” that plaintiffs who are “unlawfully already 19 in the United States” are not “subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A)”), with 20 Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, No. 25-20496, __ F.4th ___, 2026 WL 323330, at *1 21 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026) (holding that, under § 1225(b)(2)(A), petitioners who entered the 22 United States “illegally many years ago” must “be detained” without a bond hearing). But 23 most petitioners have nonetheless obtained habeas relief in functionally identical cases. 24 See, e.g., Barco Mercado v. Francis, ___ F. Supp. 3d. ___, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 25 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362” 26 opinions to address this issue, the petitioners “prevailed, either on a preliminary or final 27 basis,” and these cases were “decided by over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty 28 different courts”). l And, in the alternative, some courts have concluded that prolonged detention for 2 || arriving aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) can violate due process, so that claim is also not 3 || frivolous or incredible. See, e.g., Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772 (S.D. Cal. 4 ||2020) (“[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.’’). 7 Thus, the government must respond. By March 9, 2026, respondents must answer 8 petition. Petitioner may reply by March 16, 2026. The Court will hold oral argument 9 March 26, 2026, 11:00 a.m. 10 || Dated: March 2, 2026 12 Hon. rew G. Schopler B United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28