Samir Ibrahimov v. Christopher J. LaRose
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 507, 525 (200
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee seeking a bond hearing. The court denied the petition, finding it had jurisdiction, that the petitioner was subject to mandatory detention, and that his detention had not been unreasonably prolonged.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus denied“For the reasons stated above, Petitioner Samir Ibrahimov’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the legal standards for jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) and mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The finding that detention was not unreasonably prolonged is supported by the record, which notes the detention duration is under one year and that delays were attributable to the petitioner's counsel. The decision follows from the law and the recited facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the jurisdictional limits of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) using binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. It correctly applies the mandatory detention statute to an applicant for admission arrested at the border. The analysis of prolonged detention is supported by the specific facts recited (duration and cause of delay). The reasoning is complete and answers the motion with the right authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMIR IBRAHIMOV, Case No. 26-cv-01187-BAS-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 14 CHRISTOPHER J LAROSE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Samir Ibrahimov, appearing pro per, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) He claims he was improperly detained 20 without bond pending adjudication of his immigration petition and that he has been subject 21 to prolonged and excessive immigration detention. (Id.) He requests that he be given a 22 bond hearing. (Id.) The Government responded, arguing: (1) 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) strips 23 this Court of jurisdiction; (2) Petitioner is ineligible for bond and subject to mandatory 24 detention as an “applicant for admission” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2); and (3) Petitioner’s 25 detention has not been arbitrarily or unreasonably prolonged. (ECF No. 5.) For the reasons 26 stated below, the Court DENIES the Petition. 27 28 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 3 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 4 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 5 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 6 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 7 applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 8 687 (2001). 9 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 10 The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) arrested Petitioner, a citizen of 11 Azerbaijan, on June 2, 2025, at the International Border near Tecate, California.1 (ECF 12 No. 5-1, Ex. A.) 13 On September 5, 2025, an Immigration Judge affirmed DHS’s negative fear 14 determination, and Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings 15 on September 11, 2025. (ECF No. 5-1, Exs. C, D.) Since then, at least one continuance 16 has been at Petitioner’s counsel’s request. (Id. Ex. E.) Petitioner’s merits hearing is 17 scheduled for May 1, 2026. (Id.) 18 III. ANALYSIS 19 A. Jurisdiction 20 Respondent argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) strips this Court of jurisdiction to 21 proceed. Section 1252(g) states that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or 22 claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney 23 24 25 1 Although the Government argues that Petitioner was detained on July 2, 2025, 26 there appears to be a typographic error in the attached reports. The report mentions once 27 that Petitioner was arrested on July 2 (ECF No. 5-1, Ex. A at 4), but the rest of the documents reflect an arrest date of June 2 (see, e.g., ECF No. 5-1, Ex. A at 6.) In addition, 28 1 General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any 2 alien under this chapter.” 3 The general rule is to “‘resolve any ambiguities in a jurisdiction-stripping statute 4 [such as Section 1252(g)] in favor of the narrower interpretation,’ and by the ‘strong 5 presumption in favor of judicial review.’” Ibarra-Perez v. United States, 154 F.4th 989, 6 995 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Arce v. United States, 899 F.3d 796, 801 (9th Cir. 2018)). 7 Thus, the Supreme Court has ruled Section 1252(g) applies only to three discrete actions: 8 commencing proceedings, adjudicating cases, or executing removal orders. Reno v. Am.- 9 Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999). “Instead of ‘sweep[ing] in 10 any claim that can technically be said to arise from the three listed actions,’ the provision 11 ‘refers to just those three specific actions themselves.’” Ibarra-Perez, 154 F.4th at 995 12 (alteration in original) (quoting Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 294 (2018)). “There 13 are of course many other decisions or actions that may be part of the deportation 14 process . . .” that are not one of these three. See Reno, 525 U.S. at 482 (listing possibilities). 15 Section 1252(g) “does not prohibit challenges to unlawful practices merely because they 16 are in some fashion connected to removal orders.” Ibarra-Perez, 154 F.4th at 997. 17 In this Petition, Petitioner is not contesting the commencement or adjudication of 18 removal proceedings against him, nor is he raising an issue with respect to the execution 19 of removal. His detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) may be during, but is 20 nonetheless independent of, the removal proceedings. Thus, this Court is not stripped of 21 jurisdiction by Section 1252(g). 22 B. Mandatory Detention Pursuant to Section 1225(b)(2) 23 Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to an applicant “seeking admission” to the United 24 States. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Such an applicant seeking admission to the United States 25 at the border is subject to mandatory detention. Id. Petitioner was arrested at the border 26 seeking admission to the United States and thus is subject to mandatory detention. 27 28 l C. Prolonged Detention 2 Petitioner argues his detention has been arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged. He 3 || was arrested on June 2, 2025, so he has been detained a little over nine months and, by the 4 || time he has his merits hearing, he will have been detained 11 months. There is no evidence 5 presented that the Government has been causing or unreasonably delaying Petitioner’s 6 ||immigration proceedings. In fact, at least one continuance has been at his attorney’s 7 ||request. (ECF No. 5-1, Ex. E.) Adopting the factors listed in Lopez v. Garland, 631 F. 8 || Supp. 3d 870, 879 (E.D. Cal. 2022), the Court finds his detention at this point has not been 9 || unreasonably or arbitrarily prolonged. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons stated above, Petitioner Samir [brahimov’s Petition for Writ of 12 || Habeas Corpus is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 || DATED: March 24, 2026 (atta Bahar 16 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 7 United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _A_