Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 EMIN DEMIRCI, Case No.: 26cv3397 DMS (MMP)

11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 12 v. 13 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 18 This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 19 Respondent filed a Return to the Petition, and Petitioner filed a Traverse. For the following 20 reasons, the Petition is granted. 21 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Türkiye. (Return at 2.) On October 18, 2025, he 22 entered the United States without inspection and was later arrested by Border Patrol 23 officials. (Id.) He was determined to be inadmissible, placed in expedited removal 24 proceedings, and taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. (Id.) 25 He was later interviewed by an asylum officer and found to have a credible fear of being 26 returned to his home country, and therefore placed in regular removal proceedings. (Id.) 27 Petitioner’s master calendar hearings before an immigration judge were held on 28 April 14, 2026, and April 28, 2026. (Id.) On June 9, 2026, the immigration judge denied 1 Petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and ordered Petitioner removed to 2 Türkiye. (Id.) Petitioner filed an appeal of that decision with Board of Immigration 3 Appeals, and that appeal is pending. (Traverse at 2.) 4 On June 4, 2026, Petitioner filed the present case alleging his continued detention 5 without a bond hearing violates his due process rights. Respondents argue the Court lacks 6 jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claim, Petitioner is properly detained under 8 U.S.C. S 7 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), and Petitioner’s detention has not been unconstitutionally prolonged. 8 In Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F.Supp.3d 1099, 1106 (W.D. Wash. 2019), the court 9 set out 10 a framework for analyzing a due process challenge to prolonged detention, a six factor balancing test used by some district courts, that considers: (1) the 11 total length of detention to date; (2) the likely duration of future detention; (3) 12 conditions of detention; (4) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) delays in the removal proceedings caused by the government; 13 and (6) the likelihood that the removal proceedings will result in a final order 14 of removal. 15 Sadeqi v. LaRose, 809 F.Supp.3d 1090, 1093-94 (S.D. Cal. 2025). This Court has applied 16 those factors to similar claims, see, e.g., De la Torre Duran v. Doe, Case No. 25cv3230 17 DMS (DDL); Ogandzhanian v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, Case No. 18 26cv0093 DMS MSB, ECF No. 6, and does so again here. 19 Starting with the first factor, Petitioner has been detained since October 18, 2025, or 20 for more than 10 months. The current status of Petitioner’s immigration proceedings is 21 unclear, and thus the length of Petitioner’s future detention is also unclear. On the third 22 factor, courts in this District and elsewhere have found the conditions of confinement at 23 Otay Mesa Detention Center, where Petitioner is currently housed, “are not dissimilar to 24 criminal confinement[.]” Gao v. LaRose, 805 F.Supp.3d 1106, 1111 (S.D. Cal. 2025). See 25 also Zhakuov v. Noem, No. 3:26-cv-00288-RBM-DDL, 2026 WL 517981, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 26 Feb. 25, 2026) (quoting Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F.Supp.3d 768, 773 (S.D. Cal. 2020)) (stating 27 multiple courts have found detention at Otay Mesa “’is indistinguishable from penal 28 confinement’”). The parties agree the fourth and fifth factors are neutral. And the same 1 for the sixth factor, as it is unclear what the outcome of Petitioner’s immigration 2 || proceedings will be. 3 Because the balance of factors weigh in favor of Petitioner, the Court finds 4 || Petitioner’s detention has become unconstitutionally prolonged and violates due process. 5 || Accordingly, Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing for 6 || Petitioner before an immigration court within fourteen (14) days of this Order unless 7 || Petitioner requests a continuance. At that bond hearing, the Government shall have the 8 burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the 9 || community or a risk of flight released on bond. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report 10 || within twenty-one (21) days of this Order’s entry confirming Petitioner received a bond 11 hearing and setting out the results thereof. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 25, 2026 g □ 14 m Yn. 5 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28