Mohammad Sina Chehrazi v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security; Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States; Gregory J. Archambeault, San Diego Field Office Director, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Jeremy Casey, Imperial Regional Detention Facility
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an Iranian national detained at Imperial Regional Detention Facility, who argued that his continued detention was unreasonable because removal to Iran was not reasonably foreseeable. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, finding that the *Zadvydas* framework did not apply because the order of removal was not yet final due to a pending appeal, and that the petitioner did not state a viable claim for a subsequent bond hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus dismissed without prejudice“For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice, which means Petitioner is not barred from filing future Petitions with further information which could support a claim.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the *Zadvydas* framework, which governs detention after a final order of removal, is inapplicable because the petitioner's appeal of the removal order is still pending. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner recently received a bond hearing and is appealing that denial, which negates a claim for a subsequent bond hearing under *Matthews v. Eldridge*. Dismissing without prejudice is appropriate given the procedural posture and the lack of a viable claim at this time. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the *Zadvydas* limitation regarding final orders of removal and addresses the bond hearing claim by noting the recent hearing and pending appeal. The dismissal without prejudice is a standard and appropriate remedy when a petitioner fails to state a claim due to procedural posture or lack of viable legal theory at that moment.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHAMMAD SINA CHEHRAZI, Case No. 26-cv-4446-JES-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. 14 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of [ECF No. 1] Homeland Security; TODD BLANCHE, 15 Acting Attorney General of the United 16 States; GREGORY J. ARCHAMBEAULT, San Diego Field 17 Office Director, Bureau of Immigration 18 and Customs Enforcement; and JEREMY CASEY, Imperial Regional Detention 19 Facility, 20 Respondent. 21 Before the Court is Petitioner Mohammad Sina Chehrazi’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 22 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). 23 Petitioner is a native of Iran who has been detained at Imperial Regional Detention 24 Facility since he attempted to enter the United States without authorization on February 25 11, 2025. Pet. at 4-5. Petitioner applied for asylum, which was denied by an immigration 26 judge. Id. at 5. An immigration judge also entered an order of removal against Petitioner 27 on January 13, 2026. Id. Petitioner appealed, and his appeal is still pending. Id. On May 28 1 26, 2026, an immigration judge denied Petitioner bond, finding that Petitioner is a flight 2 risk. Id. Petitioner appealed the bond denial, and that appeal also remains pending. Id. 3 Upon consideration of a habeas petition under § 2241, the court shall “award the writ 4 or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, 5 unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled 6 thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. “Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations 7 in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.” 8 Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Hendricks v. 9 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)). 10 Here, Petitioner argues that he should be released because there is no likelihood of 11 his removal to Iran in the reasonable foreseeable future. Pet. at 6. In Zadvydas, the Supreme 12 Court held that when the government is unable to remove an alien within 90 days after a 13 final order of removal, the alien may seek review of the reasonableness of their continued 14 detention under the due process clause through petition for writ of habeas corpus. Zadvydas 15 v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). The Court instructed habeas courts to analyze whether 16 continued detention beyond the 90-day period “exceeds a period reasonably necessary to 17 secure removal,” based on “the [removal detention] statute’s basic purpose, namely, 18 assuring the alien’s presence at the moment of removal.” Id. at 699. The Court has held 19 that it is presumptively reasonable for the government to detain an alien for a period of 6 20 months while it works to effectuate his removal after issuing a final order of removal 21 against him. Id. at 701. Beyond that period, “if removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the 22 court should hold continued detention unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute” 23 and grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 699-700. 24 Here, there is not yet a final order of removal, because Petitioner has appealed his 25 removal order. See 8 CFR § 1241.1(a) (explaining that orders of removal become final after 26 an appeal is dismissed, waived, or otherwise forfeited). The Zadvydas framework is thus 27 not useful in determining Petitioner’s case. Nor does Petitioner presently have a viable 28 claim for a subsequent bond hearing under Matthews v. Eldridge, because he was given a 1 ||bond hearing on June 11, 2026, some seven weeks ago, and is currently appealing that 2 || denial. See Mercado-Arechiga v. Larose, No. 26-CV-683-JES-DEB, 2026 WL 926901, at 3 || *5-6 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2026) (explaining analysis of requests for additional bond hearings 4 ||on due process grounds). Without any viable claim for relief, the Court cannot find that he 5 || states a claim in his petition as it stands. 6 For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice, 7 ||which means Petitioner is not barred from filing future Petitions with further information 8 || which could support a claim. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: August 4, 2026 eS Semen 12 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28