Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Song Lin, a Chinese national, was apprehended after entering the United States in January 2026 and placed in expedited removal proceedings. An asylum officer later found that he had a credible fear of religious persecution, and his asylum application remained pending. Lin had been held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center for more than six months without an individualized bond hearing.
Lin filed a habeas petition arguing that prolonged mandatory detention without a hearing violated Fifth Amendment due process. The government asserted that immigration statutes required his detention during the asylum proceedings and that the court lacked jurisdiction because his challenge arose from the decision to commence removal proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The district court held that it had jurisdiction because Lin challenged the legal authority for prolonged detention without process, not the commencement or outcome of his removal case. Statutory limits on review of removal decisions did not foreclose that independent constitutional detention claim.
Considering the duration of custody and the likely additional time before the immigration matter would conclude, the court found the detention unreasonably prolonged. It ordered an individualized bond hearing within seven days. At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lin poses a flight risk or danger; the immigration judge must consider less restrictive alternatives and ability to pay and make specific findings if bond is denied. The court denied immediate release and fees without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- A challenge to prolonged detention without a bond hearing is distinct from a challenge to the government’s decision to commence removal proceedings.
- Mandatory immigration detention can become unconstitutional as its duration and expected continuation increase.
- Due process required the government to justify continued custody by clear and convincing evidence at an individualized hearing.
- The decision requires consideration of alternatives to detention and ability to pay, plus specific findings supporting any denial of bond.
Why It Matters
The order supplies a concrete remedy for asylum seekers held for extended periods while their immigration cases remain unresolved. It does not invalidate the detention statute or require automatic release, but it places the burden on the government to justify continued confinement through meaningful procedures.
Habeas practitioners should document the full custody timeline, foreseeable immigration schedule, reasons for delay, and available release conditions. Government counsel and immigration judges should be prepared to address alternatives and financial circumstances rather than treating detention as self-justifying.