Abel Hagos v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court considered an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen arguing that his continued detention was unreasonable because there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court granted the petition and ordered the petitioner's immediate release from custody subject to reasonable conditions of supervision.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted, and the petitioner is ordered to be released from custody subject to reasonable conditions of supervision pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a).“The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED on the Petitioner’s claim and writ is ISSUED. The Respondent shall immediately release Hagos from custody, subject to reasonable conditions of release pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a).” | agree with court The court's decision is procedurally sound because the Respondents explicitly stated they did not oppose the release and did not contest the petitioner's claim that there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. In federal habeas proceedings, when the government does not contest the factual predicate for release (i.e., the lack of a significant likelihood of removal) and does not argue that the petitioner is a danger or flight risk, the court is generally not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or conduct an independent merits analysis under the *Zadvydas* framework, as the government has effectively conceded the basis for the writ. The order correctly cites the statutory authority for release conditions. |
The evidentiary hearing set for July 27, 2026, is vacated.“The evidentiary hearing set for July 27, 2026, is VACATED.” | agree with court Because the court granted the petition based on the Respondents' lack of opposition and concession of the key factual issue, the previously scheduled evidentiary hearing is no longer necessary to resolve the dispute. Vacating the hearing is a logical and appropriate procedural consequence of granting the writ on the current record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound because it correctly identifies that the Respondents did not oppose the release and did not contest the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of a significant likelihood of removal. In the absence of a contested factual issue or a government argument that the petitioner poses a danger or flight risk, the court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or conduct a detailed independent analysis under *Zadvydas*. The court's reliance on the statutory and regulatory provisions for release conditions is appropriate, and the vacatur of the hearing is a logical procedural step. The order is concise and directly addresses the motion based on the parties' positions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABEL HAGOS, Case No.: 3:26-cv-01129-BTM-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 15 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of [ECF NO. 15] the Department of Homeland Security, et 16 al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 After Agel Hagos’s grant of voluntary departure converted to a final removal order, 2 ||he filed an amended petition for the writ of habeas corpus on April 17, 2026. (ECF No. 3 He argued that he must be released from custody because “there is no significant 4 || likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” (/d. at 2 (quoting Zadvydas v. 5 || Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)).) He claims this despite being detained for less than the “six- 6 ||month presumptively reasonable removal period” established in Zadvydas. (Id.) 7 The Respondents have filed an amended response to Hago’s amended petition. They 8 not oppose an order from this Court directing that Petitioner be released from custody, 9 || subject to reasonable conditions of supervision pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a).” (ECF No. 10 at 1.) The Respondents also do not contend that the Petitioner is a danger or a flight 11 Because the Respondents do not contest the Petitioner’s claim that there is not a 12 significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future or the Petitioner’s 13 requested remedy of release, the Court orders the Petitioner’s release. 14 The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED on the Petitioner’s claim and 15 writ is ISSUED. The Respondent shall immediately release Hagos from custody, 16 subject to reasonable conditions of release pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). See 8 U.S.C. 17 || § 1231(a)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(h)(1). The parties shall file a statement as to the 18 || satisfaction of the writ by July 17, 2026, at 12 p.m. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce 19 || the writ. 20 The evidentiary hearing set for July 27, 2026, is VACATED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: July 15, 2026 il ‘ 23 Homor@oie Barry Ted eh ware 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2 □ □□