Mizanur Rahman v. Christopher LaRose
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Mizanur Rahman filed a second habeas petition challenging his sixteen-month immigration detention without a bond hearing. The court granted the petition based on the government's concession that a bond hearing was required and ordered a hearing to be held within fourteen days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus“In light of the Government’s concession, the Court GRANTS the Petition.” | agree with court The court relied on the government's explicit concession that the detention was prolonged enough to warrant a bond hearing. In federal habeas proceedings, a respondent's concession of the merits is generally sufficient to support a grant of the writ, particularly when the underlying legal framework (due process limits on indefinite detention) supports the relief. The court correctly identified that while the petitioner is mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, the government's concession effectively waives the argument that no bond hearing is required due to the statutory mandate. |
Ordering a bond hearing within fourteen days“The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Mizanur Rahman (A#241-304-068) within fourteen days of the date of this Order.” | agree with court The court ordered specific relief consistent with the government's concession. The timeframe (14 days) is a reasonable judicial directive to ensure prompt compliance with the due process requirement to review the necessity of continued detention. The court also set a clear consequence (release) for non-compliance, which is standard practice in such orders. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the government's concession to grant relief. It correctly cites foundational habeas corpus authorities to establish jurisdiction and standing. However, it does not explicitly analyze the specific due process standard for mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (as opposed to § 1231) in the absence of the concession, relying instead on the concession to bypass that complex legal analysis. Since the government conceded the point, the court's reliance on the concession is legally sufficient to grant the writ, making the order sound despite the brevity of the legal analysis.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MIZANUR RAHMAN, Case No. 26-cv-02022-BAS-DDL 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 12 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 13 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 This is Petitioner Mizanur Rahman’s second habeas petition alleging that his 18 immigration detention has been unreasonably prolonged without any bond hearing. 19 (ECF No. 1.) This Court denied the first Petition, finding Petitioner had failed to make a 20 showing that the length of his detention was arbitrary or unreasonably prolonged. See 21 Rahman v. LaRose, No. 26-cv-00630-BAS-BLM (S.D. Cal. filed Feb. 2, 2026). 22 It has now been sixteen months since Petitioner was fir241-304-068st detained by 23 the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and he asserts again that his detention has 24 been arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged. (ECF No. 1.) The Government files a Return 25 in which it “concedes that this Court should order that Petitioner receive a bond hearing, 26 where the government would bear the burden of proof of establishing, by clear and 27 convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.” 28 (ECF No. 10.) In light of the Government’s concession, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 1 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 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). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he 9 || has standing to pursue this Petition. 10 ANALYSIS 11 Petitioner has been detained in immigration custody since November 29, 2024. He 12 mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, so Immigration Judges have correctly 13 |/indicated they have no jurisdiction to consider bond. However, the Government now 14 concedes that Petitioner’s sixteen-month detention is so prolonged that it warrants a bond 15 ||hearing. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 16 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 17 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for 18 Mizanur Rahman (A#241-304-068) within fourteen days of the date of this Order. At that bond hearing, the Government has the burden of proving by 19 clear and convincing evidence that, if released on bond, Petitioner would pose 0 a risk of flight or a danger to the community. If no bond hearing is held within fourteen days, Petitioner is ordered released forthwith. 71 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 . ~ DATED: April 22, 2026 25 H@n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 6 United States District Court 27 28 ~_9_