Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Asif Razzaq Rajput, an immigration detainee proceeding by counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, naming Todd M. Lyons and other officials as respondents. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 27, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations (Doc. 20) recommending that the petition be granted in part. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties with notice that any objections were due within fourteen days after service. On September 8, 2026, respondents filed a one-sentence objection stating only “[f]or the reasons set forth in Respondents’ previous briefing” (Doc. 21).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the district court reviewed the matter de novo. Having carefully reviewed the file, including respondents’ objections, the court concluded that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Although the caption describes the relief as requiring a bond hearing within fourteen days, the operative text of the order controls and requires the hearing within ten (10) days.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered that the findings and recommendations (Doc. 20) are adopted in full, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is granted. Respondents are ordered to provide Rajput with a bond hearing before an immigration judge within ten (10) days that complies with the requirements of Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011).
At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Rajput is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denial of bond, and the immigration judge should consider Rajput’s financial circumstances or alternative conditions of release if he is determined not to be a danger to the community and not so great a flight risk as to require detention without bond.
Respondents must immediately provide Rajput with a copy of the order and give him 72 hours’ notice before the bond hearing in a language he can understand. He may be represented by an attorney, the deadline may be extended at his request so he can obtain counsel, and any attorney he obtains must also receive 72 hours’ notice. If respondents do not provide the bond hearing within ten days, they must release him. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case, enter judgment for petitioner, terminate any remaining motions as moot, and serve a copy of the order on California City Detention Center.
Key Takeaways
- The district court conducted de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in full.
- The habeas petition was granted, and respondents must provide Rajput a bond hearing before an immigration judge within ten days.
- At the hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Rajput is a flight risk or a danger to the community to justify denying bond.
- The immigration judge must consider Rajput’s financial circumstances or alternative conditions of release when the required findings on danger and flight risk are not made.
- If respondents fail to provide the hearing within ten days, they must release Rajput; the court also ordered judgment entered for petitioner, the case closed, remaining motions terminated as moot, and the order served on the detention facility.
Why It Matters
The order converts the magistrate judge’s recommendation into an enforceable judgment granting habeas relief. Its central remedy is not an immediate unconditional release but a bond hearing before an immigration judge within ten days, governed by specific burden-of-proof and release-condition requirements, with release required if the hearing deadline is missed.
The decision also specifies procedural protections intended to make the hearing meaningful: immediate service of the order, 72 hours’ advance notice in a language Rajput understands, the right to counsel, and notice to any attorney. Because the order adopts the underlying findings and recommendations without reproducing their reasoning, its stated basis is the court’s conclusion that the record and analysis support them.