Sakirou Boukoubongue v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition challenging the petitioner's prolonged immigration detention without a bond hearing. The court granted the petition, ordering the petitioner's immediate release and enjoining respondents from redetaining him without first providing an individualized bond hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus“the Court GRANTS the habeas petitions” | agree with court The court relies on its own prior unpublished orders (Faizi and Mubanga) to establish jurisdiction and the constitutional violation. While the court cites Hernandez v. Sessions for the standard of the bond hearing, it does not explicitly state the standard of review for the habeas petition itself (e.g., de novo or abuse of discretion). The decision to grant the petition follows from the cited authorities regarding the unconstitutionality of prolonged detention without a bond hearing. |
Ordering immediate release of the petitioner“Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner by 5 p.m. on July 10, 2026.” | agree with court The court orders release rather than just a bond hearing based on Mubanga v. Mullin, an unpublished district court order. The court finds that a bond hearing would not sufficiently protect rights. This is a specific remedial decision based on the court's interpretation of the constitutional limits on detention. |
Enjoining redetention without an individualized bond hearing“The Court ENJOINS Respondents from redetaining Petitioner during the pendency of his removal proceedings without first providing an individualized bond hearing” | agree with court The injunction incorporates the standards from Hernandez v. Sessions, requiring the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is a danger or flight risk. This aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the Due Process Clause and immigration detention. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order relies heavily on two unpublished district court orders (Faizi and Mubanga) for its core jurisdictional and remedial findings. While it cites binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Hernandez) for the bond hearing standards, it does not cite the foundational Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit cases that establish the constitutional right to a bond hearing in prolonged immigration detention (e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis or Diouf v. Napolitano). The reliance on unpublished, non-binding district court orders as the primary basis for the constitutional finding is a gap in the legal reasoning, though the result is consistent with established circuit law.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incomplete record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAKIROU BOUKOUBONGUE, Case No.: 26-cv-02491-JO-VET 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 v. 15 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al. 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 20 For the reasons stated on the record at oral argument on June 4, 2026 (Dkt. 16) and 21 in Faizi v. Larose, No. 25-CV-02974-JO-MSB, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2026 WL 1112035, at *3 22 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026), the Court finds that (1) it has jurisdiction to address Petitioner’s 23 challenge to his prolonged immigration detention, and (2) Petitioner’s immigration 24 detention without a bond hearing has exceeded constitutional limits. 25 For the reasons stated in Mubanga v. Mullin, No. 26-CV-02565-JO-AHG, Dkt. 21 26 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2026), the Court finds that ordering a bond hearing would not sufficiently 27 protect Petitioner’s constitutional rights and orders his immediate release. 28 1 I. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the habeas petitions and ORDERS 3 as follows: 4 1. Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner by 5 p.m. on July 10, 2026. 5 Respondents shall file an affidavit attesting to Petitioner’s release by 5 p.m. on 6 the following business day. 7 2. The Court ENJOINS Respondents from redetaining Petitioner during the 8 pendency of his removal proceedings without first providing an individualized 9 bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge where the government bears 10 the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a 11 danger to the community or such a flight risk that no amount of bond or 12 alternative conditions of release “would suffice to ensure his future appearance.” 13 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 983 (9th Cir. 2017); see id. at 990–91 n.18; 14 see also Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011). In setting the 15 amount of bond, the immigration judge must consider Petitioner’s financial 16 circumstances and alternative conditions of release as set forth in Hernandez, 17 872 F.3d at 990–91. The immigration judge shall not deny bond on the basis 18 that (i) 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) requires or authorizes mandatory detention; or 19 (ii) BIA precedent deprives the immigration judge of jurisdiction to decide bond. 20 If requested by Petitioner, Respondents shall produce a transcript or 21 transcription of the recorded bond hearing. 22 3. Respondents shall file a declaration attesting to full compliance with these 23 obligations. Respondents are ENJOINED from redetaining Petitioner until 48 24 25 26 27 28 1 hours after filing the declaration. 2 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 ||Dated: July 9, 2026 a“ 8 ferforable Jinsook Ohta 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28