IBRAHIM MOHAMED v. CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior-Warden Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
IBRAHIM MOHAMED v. CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior-Warden Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Ibrahim Mohamed, a detainee at Otay Mesa Detention Center. The court granted the petition and ordered the government to provide an individualized bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge within 15 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted“For the reasons set forth in the Court’s order, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted.” | agree with court The order grants the writ based on the precedent set in Martinez v. Clark, which requires individualized bond hearings for immigration detainees. The specific relief ordered (a bond hearing with specific factors and burden of proof) aligns with the requirements of that Ninth Circuit precedent. The court correctly identifies the burden of proof as 'clear and convincing evidence' for the government to show danger or flight risk, consistent with the standard applied in immigration bond contexts. |
Government ordered to grant individualized bond hearing“On or before June 19, 2026, unless Petitioner requests a continuance, the Government is ordered to grant Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before a fair, neutral, and open-minded IJ.” | agree with court The order specifies the deadline and the nature of the hearing (individualized, before a neutral IJ). It lists the specific factors the IJ must consider, citing Martinez v. Clark. It also specifies the burden of proof on the government. This is a standard remedy for a habeas petition challenging the denial of a bond hearing in immigration detention. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a judgment and writ of habeas corpus that grants the petition. It relies on the binding Ninth Circuit precedent in Martinez v. Clark to define the scope of the bond hearing and the factors to be considered. The reasoning is concise but directly applies the controlling law to the facts of the case (detainee seeking bond). The specific instructions to the IJ and the government are clear and enforceable. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the writ, which is appropriate.
Opinion
1 2
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11 IBRAHIM MOHAMED, No. 3:26-cv-02679-BTM-SBC 12 Petitioner, JUDGMENT AND WRIT OF HABEAS 13 v. CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior- Warden Otay Mesa Detention Center, et 15 al., 16 Respondents.
18 19 For the reasons set forth in the Court’s order, the petition for a writ of habeas 20 corpus is granted. On or before June 19, 2026, unless Petitioner requests a continuance, 21 the Government is ordered to grant Petitioner an individualized bond hearing before a 22 fair, neutral, and open-minded IJ. The IJ shall consider where the Petitioner will reside, 23 who any surety may be, the appropriateness of non-financial conditions, the nine factors 24 for an IJ to consider in an individualized bond hearing as set forth in Martinez v. Clark, 25 124 F.4th 775 (9th Cir. 2024): (1) whether the alien has a fixed address in the United 26 States; (2) the alien’s length of residence in the United States; (3) the alien’s family ties 27 in the United States, and whether they may entitle the alien to reside permanently in the 28 United States in the future; (4) the alien’s employment history; (5) the alien’s record of 1 | criminal activity, the recency of such activity, and the seriousness of the offenses; (7) the 2 | alien’s history of immigration violations; (8) any attempts by the alien to flee prosecution 3 | or otherwise escape from authorities; and (9) the alien’s manner of entry to the United 4 | States, and any other factors the IJ deems relevant in this particular case. See also Matter 5 | of Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37, 40 (BIA 2006). The burden is on the Government, by clear 6 | and convincing evidence, to establish that the Petitioner is a danger to the community or a 7 | risk of flight for which there are no conditions available to him that will deter such risk. 8 If the IJ denies bond, the judge must make specific findings as to why Petitioner is 9 | a danger to the community or a flight risk, and the Government must make the audio of 10 | the hearing available to Petitioner’s counsel. If the Government fails to comply with this 11 | writ, Petitioner can apply to this Court for relief. The parties are ordered to provide a 12 | joint status report within forty-eight (48) hours of the bond hearing. The Court retains 13 | jurisdiction to enforce this writ. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 | Dated: June 4, 2026 _ / Honowble Barry Ted Moskowi V7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28