Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Liang Liang, a noncitizen held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the lawfulness of her continued detention. The petition, assigned docket number 5:26-cv-06357-SK and naming Markwayne Mullin and other officials as respondents, was accompanied by an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release from custody. The matter was resolved by an order filed on October 27, 2026.
The petition arose under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the statute governing the detention of noncitizens pending removal proceedings and providing for custody redetermination hearings before an immigration judge. Liang sought either outright release or, at minimum, a prompt bond hearing at which she could contest her continued detention under the standards governing § 1226(a) detainees. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Steve Kim, who presided over the case in the Central District of California.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition in part and denied the ex parte application for a temporary restraining order as moot. The operative directive commands that no later than seven days from the date of the order, petitioner Liang Liang shall be released from ICE custody unless she is provided a prompt custody redetermination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1). This conditional release order ensures that her detention cannot continue beyond the seven-day window without a timely hearing before an immigration judge.
The court grounded its ruling in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2026), which establishes that a § 1226(a) detainee will be released on bond if he demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. The order further clarified that the immigration judge retains ordinary discretion to continue the hearing for a reasonable period based on a valid showing of good cause, including the petitioner's need to secure the appearance of immigration counsel and marshal documentary evidence, citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.
Finally, the court retained jurisdiction to enforce its judgment, subject to the limits of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), and stated that judgment will be entered accordingly. In support of this retained jurisdiction, the court cited recent Central District of California decisions including Gomez v. Blanche and Fan v. Bondi.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the § 2241 habeas petition in part, ordering that Liang Liang be released from ICE custody within seven days unless she is provided a prompt bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1).
- The controlling Ninth Circuit standard requires release on bond if the § 1226(a) detainee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that she is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
- The immigration judge may continue the bond hearing for a reasonable period upon a valid good-cause showing, such as the detainee's need to secure counsel or marshal documentary evidence.
- The ex parte application for a temporary restraining order was denied as moot in light of the partial grant of habeas relief.
- The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce its judgment, subject to the statutory limits of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e).
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the continuing role of federal district courts in supervising the lawfulness of immigration detention through habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. By conditioning continued detention on the provision of a prompt bond hearing, the court enforced the procedural protections applicable to detainees held under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), ensuring that detention does not persist indefinitely without a meaningful opportunity for judicial review of custody.
The decision also clarifies the practical division of responsibilities following habeas relief: while the immigration judge retains ordinary discretion over scheduling and continuances for good cause, the federal court maintains jurisdiction to enforce compliance with its judgment within the bounds of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). This framework preserves both the detainee's access to a timely bond hearing and the government's ability to seek reasonable continuances when justified.