Ahmet Ardic v. Christopher Larose, Senior Warde, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- writ granted — the Petition is granted.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen alleging that his continued detention without a bond hearing violated his due process rights. The court granted the petition, finding the detention unconstitutionally prolonged, and ordered an individualized bond hearing within fourteen days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted“For the following reasons, the Petition is granted.” | agree with court The court applied a six-factor balancing test to determine if the detention was unconstitutionally prolonged. It found that the length of detention (nearly nine months) and the conditions of confinement (comparable to criminal confinement) weighed in favor of the petitioner, while other factors were neutral due to lack of evidence from the government. This application of the *Zadvydas* framework to a detained alien in removal proceedings is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (*Rodriguez v. Robbins*) and district court practice in this circuit. |
Order directing individualized bond hearing“Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration court within fourteen (14) days of this Order unless Petitioner requests a continuance.” | agree with court The remedy of a bond hearing is the standard equitable relief granted when a court finds that detention has become unconstitutionally prolonged under the Due Process Clause. The court correctly placed the burden on the government to prove flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence, which aligns with the standard typically applied in such habeas contexts. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is sound with gaps. The court correctly applied the six-factor test to find that the detention was unconstitutionally prolonged and ordered the appropriate remedy. However, it failed to cite *Rodriguez v. Robbins*, the binding Ninth Circuit precedent that establishes the due process framework for prolonged detention of aliens in removal proceedings. The court relied on district court cases (*Banda*, *Sadeqi*) instead of the controlling circuit authority. Additionally, the order notes that the status of the immigration proceedings is 'unclear' and that the government failed to produce evidence regarding delays, yet it does not explicitly address the government's argument that the petitioner is an 'applicant for admission' under *Matter of Yajure-Hurtado*, which might affect the analysis of the 'likely duration of future detention' factor. Despite these gaps, the result is defensible and consistent with the law.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 26cv1828 DMS SBC AHMET ARDIC, 12 O R D E R G R A N T I N G P E T I TION 13 Petitioner, v. 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior 15 Warde, Otay Mesa Detention Center 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 20 Respondent filed a Return to the Petition, and Petitioner filed a Reply. For the following 21 reasons, the Petition is granted. 22 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Turkey. (Pet., Ex. 1.) On August 29, 2025, he 23 entered the United States without inspection and was arrested by Border Patrol officials. 24 (Id.) He was determined to be inadmissible, placed in expedited removal proceedings, and 25 taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. (Id.) Petitioner was 26 referred for a credible fear interview with an asylum officer, and after receiving a positive 27 finding, was issued a Notice to Appear, which initiated full removal proceedings. (Id.; 28 Return at 2.) On March 11, 2026, Petitioner appeared before an immigration judge for a 1 custody redetermination hearing. Petitioner’s request was denied based on Matter of 2 Yajure-Hurtado, 29 I & N Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).1 (Pet., Ex. 1.) According to the Return, 3 Petitioner was scheduled for a master hearing before an immigration judge on April 22, 4 2026. It is unclear whether that hearing went forward as scheduled or was continued. In 5 either case, as of May 7, 2026, Petitioner was still detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center. 6 On March 23, 2026, Petitioner filed the present case alleging his continued detention 7 without a bond hearing violates his due process rights. Respondents argue Petitioner’s 8 detention has not been unconstitutionally prolonged. 9 In Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F.Supp.3d 1099, 1106 (W.D. Wash. 2019), the court 10 set out 11 a framework for analyzing a due process challenge to prolonged detention, a six factor balancing test used by some district courts, that considers: (1) the 12 total length of detention to date; (2) the likely duration of future detention; (3) 13 conditions of detention; (4) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the government; 14 and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final order 15 of removal. 16 Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F.Supp.3d 1090, 1093-94 (S.D. Cal. 2025). This Court has applied 17 those factors to similar claims, see, e.g., De la Torre Duran v. Doe, Case No. 25cv3230 18 DMS (DDL); Ogandzhanian v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, Case No. 19 26cv0093 DMS MSB, ECF No. 6, and does so again here. 20 Starting with the first factor, Petitioner has been detained since August 29, 2025, or 21 for nearly nine months. The current status of Petitioner’s immigration proceedings is 22 unclear, and thus the length of Petitioner’s future detention is also unclear. On the third 23 factor, courts in this District and elsewhere have found the conditions of confinement at 24 25 26 1 In Yajure-Hurtado, the Board of Immigration Appeals reasoned that any individual who entered the United States without admission is an “applicant for admission” (meaning, an “alien present in the United 27 States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival . . .)”), and must, therefore, be detained during removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 28 1 Mesa Detention Center, where Petitioner is currently housed, “are not dissimilar to 2 || criminal confinement[.|” Gao v. LaRose, 805 F.Supp.3d 1106, 1111 (S.D. Cal. 2025). See 3 || also Zhakuov v. Noem, No. 3:26-cv-00288-RBM-DDL, 2026 WL 517981, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 4 || Feb. 25, 2026) (quoting Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F.Supp.3d 768, 773 (S.D. Cal. 2020)) (stating 5 ||multiple courts have found detention at Otay Mesa “’is indistinguishable from penal 6 ||confinement’”). On the fourth and fifth factors, Respondents argue any delays in 7 || Petitioner’s immigration proceedings were the result of Petitioner’s requests to continue 8 were not caused by Respondents, but Respondents failed to produce any evidence to 9 ||support those assertions. Absent any evidence, these factors are neutral. And the same 10 || goes for the sixth factor, as it is unclear what the outcome of Petitioner’s immigration 11 || proceedings will be. 12 Because the balance of factors weigh in favor of Petitioner, the Court finds 13 || Petitioner’s detention has become unconstitutionally prolonged and violates due process. 14 || Accordingly, Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for 15 || Petitioner before an immigration court within fourteen (14) days of this Order unless 16 || Petitioner requests a continuance. At that bond hearing, the Government shall have the 17 ||burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the 18 |}community or a risk of flight if released on bond. Respondents shall file a Joint Status 19 || Report within twenty-one (21) days of this Order’s entry confirming Petitioner received a 20 bond hearing and setting out the results thereof. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: May 22, 2026 23 nm Sab Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 25 26 27 28