Rui Xiao v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Petitioner Rui Xiao's motion for reconsideration regarding a prior order that had mandated a bond hearing rather than immediate release after finding his detention presumptively unreasonable. The court granted the motion, vacated the Immigration Judge's bond order, and determined that immediate release was required under Zadvydas v. Davis regardless of the petitioner's criminal history.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration” | agree with court The court applied the standard for reconsideration (newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law) and found that its prior decision was in error because it failed to recognize that Zadvydas requires immediate release regardless of criminal history. The reasoning is supported by the cited authorities. |
Immigration Judge's February 19, 2026 custody redetermination order vacated“VACATES the Immigration Judge’s February 19, 2026 custody redetermination order” | agree with court The court vacated the bond order because it determined that the correct remedy under Zadvydas was immediate release, not a bond hearing. This follows from the court's finding that the prior order was manifestly unjust or in clear error. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard for reconsideration and applies it to the facts. It cites binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Tuan Thai) and the Supreme Court's holding in Zadvydas to support the conclusion that criminal history does not preclude immediate release. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUI XIAO, Case No.: 26cv474-LL-BJW 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al., 15 [ECF No. 9] Respondents. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Petitioner Rui Xiao’s Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 9. 20 Respondents did not file an opposition, but Petitioner still filed a reply [ECF No. 11]. For 21 the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion. 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 On February 10, 2026, this Court granted in part Petitioner’s petition for writ of 24 habeas corpus and ordered a bond hearing. ECF No. 7. Specifically, the Court found that 25 Petitioner’s seven-month detention was no longer presumptively reasonable under 26 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Id. at 4. However, due to Petitioner’s prior 27 criminal conviction, the Court ordered a bond hearing, instead of an immediate release. Id. 28 at 7–8. On February 19, 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing, where the immigration 1 ||judge (“IJ”) set a bond for $2,000 and ordered additional conditions of release. ECF No. 2 || 11 at 2. Petitioner was subsequently released on February 20, 2026. Jd. On February 11, 3 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Motion, asking this Court to reconsider its February 10, 4 Order and to vacate the IJ’s February 19, 2026 order. ECF No. 9. 5 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 6 || discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, 7 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 8 807 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). 9 Here, Petitioner argues that an immediate release, rather than a bond hearing before 10 |/an immigration judge, is the required remedy under Zadvydas regardless of a noncitizen’s 11 criminal history. See ECF No. 9 at 5—8. After careful review, the Court agrees. See e.g., 12 || Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 684 (“Zadvydas has a long criminal record, involving drug crimes, 13 || attempted robbery, attempted burglary, and theft.”); Tuan Thai v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 790, 14 || 792, 797-98 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s release of “‘a violent criminal [with] 15 |}convictions for assault, harassment, and third-degree rape” pursuant to Zadvydas). Under 16 || Zadvydas, Petitioner was entitled to an immediate release regardless of his criminal 17 |} conviction. 18 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and 19 || VACATES the Immigration Judge’s February 19, 2026 custody redetermination order. 20 ||Respondents may impose appropriate conditions of supervision under 8 U.S.C. § 21 || 1231(a)(3). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: September 1, 2026 NO 24 nF 25 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 27 28