Ashraf Mashiyev v. Christopher Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Ashraf Mashiyev filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged immigration detention and the denial of a bond hearing. The Court granted the petition, ordering a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within 14 days, with the government bearing the burden of proof, or immediate release if the hearing is not held.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus“Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition to the extent it requests that a bond hearing be held before an Immigration Judge.” | agree with court The government conceded that the detention was arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged and that the petitioner was entitled to a bond hearing. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez v. Marin) to support the due process violation inherent in prolonged detention without a bond hearing. The order correctly distinguishes the petitioner's situation from Zadvydas v. Davis (no final order of removal) but applies the general due process principles regarding arbitrary detention. The relief ordered (bond hearing with specific burden of proof) aligns with the government's concession and the cited legal standards. |
Ordering a bond hearing within 14 days or immediate release“The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Ashraf Mashiyev (A#249- 142-052) within 14 days of the date of this Order. ... If no bond hearing is held within 14 days, Petitioner is ordered released forthwith.” | agree with court This is a specific remedial order following the grant of the petition. It sets a clear deadline and a consequence for non-compliance, which is standard practice in habeas corpus orders to ensure the writ is effective. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on appropriate binding authority from the Ninth Circuit (Rodriguez v. Marin) and the Supreme Court (Hamdi, Preiser, Zadvydas). It correctly identifies the legal standard for habeas relief in the context of immigration detention and applies the government's concession to grant the specific relief requested. The distinction from Zadvydas is accurate and prevents misapplication of that specific precedent.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 ASHRAF MASHIYEV, Case No. 26-cv-04180-BAS-BLM 14 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 15 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 16 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 20 21 Petitioner Ashraf Mashiyev filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 22 claiming his immigration detention has been arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged and 23 that he was improperly denied a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner asks either for 24 immediate release or for a bond hearing. (Id.) The Government concedes that, given the 25 Court’s prior rulings, Petitioner’s detention has been arbitrarily and unreasonably 26 prolonged and that he is entitled to a bond hearing where the Government would bear the 27 burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is either a danger 28 1 to the community or a risk of flight. (ECF No. 5.) For the reasons stated below, the Court 2 GRANTS the Petition. 3 I. LEGAL STANDARD 4 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 5 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 6 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 7 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 8 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 9 applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 10 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he 11 has standing to pursue this Petition. 12 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 13 Petitioner, a citizen of Azerbaijan, entered the United States seeking asylum on June 14 7, 2025. (Pet. ¶¶ 16, 18, ECF No. 1.) He has remained in custody since then. (Id.) He lost 15 his bid for asylum before the Immigration Court, and he has filed an appeal with the Board 16 of Immigration Appeals, but no briefing schedule has been set. (Id. ¶ 20.) 17 III. ANALYSIS 18 The Court agrees that immigration detention without a bond hearing can be deemed 19 arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged and thus a violation of the detainee’s due process 20 rights. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 256 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We have grave 21 doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without any process is 22 constitutional or that those who founded our democracy precisely to protect against the 23 government’s arbitrary deprivation of liberty would have thought so.”). Although 24 Petitioner cites Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001), the Court recognizes that 25 Petitioner is differently situated than the petitioners in Zadvydas. He is not subject to a final 26 order of removal and is not facing indefinite detention because no country is willing to 27 accept him for deportation or removal. 28 I Nonetheless, Petitioner has been in custody for over a year without his immigration 2 ||case resolving. The Government agrees that, given the Court’s prior rulings, thirteen 3 ||months is an arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged period of time for Petitioner to be 4 || detained. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition to the extent it requests that a bond 5 || hearing be held before an Immigration Judge. 6 CONCLUSION 7 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 8 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Ashraf 9 Mashiyev (A#249- 142-052) within 14 days of the date of this Order. At that bond hearing, the Government shall have the burden of proving by clear and 10 convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight if released on bond. If no bond hearing is held within 14 days, Petitioner is ordered released forthwith. 12 13 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || DATED: August 3, 2026 yatta Bahan □ 17 Hdn. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 8 United States District Court 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Qe