Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jing Zhao filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on October 4, 2026, in the Central District of California, Eastern Division (No. 5:26-cv-05854-DTB). Represented by counsel, she alleged that her detention violated procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment and sought immediate release. Under General Order 26-05 and the briefing schedule, respondents were required to appear by October 7 and answer by October 13; they did neither and filed no response, so the court treated the matter as ready for decision.
The order's background section expressly drew from the petition. Zhao, a Chinese citizen, came to the United States as a student in 2013, earned two master's degrees, and was lawfully admitted on an F-1 student visa in September 2017. She timely filed an affirmative asylum application that, according to the petition, remained pending for roughly nine years through no fault of hers. She held employment authorization and a Social Security number, lived openly at an address known to the government, worked lawfully, and had no criminal history or prior detention.
The petition alleged that on October 3, 2026, ICE officers arrested Zhao at Los Angeles International Airport after a purely domestic flight, without a judicial warrant, prior notice, or a hearing, and that no neutral decision-maker reviewed the deprivation of liberty. Because she was lawfully admitted and continuously present, the petition maintained she was not an arriving alien subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or mandatory detention, but was held under discretionary detention under § 1226(a). No final removal order existed, and she remained in custody at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.
The Court’s Holding
United States Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow explained that habeas corpus challenges the legality of executive detention and that 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) permits relief for custody violating the Constitution or federal law. The order recognized that Fifth Amendment due-process protections extend to noncitizens in the United States and constrain the government's discretion to incarcerate them, and it described the three-factor Mathews v. Eldridge framework used to assess procedural challenges to immigration detention.
The decisive analysis rested on party presentation and the respondents' default. The court stated that federal courts decide cases on the arguments parties present and act as neutral arbiters rather than constructing arguments for represented parties. It found Zhao's procedural due-process claim and request for release unrefuted; respondents, represented by competent counsel with access to the relevant facts, offered no factual or legal basis to reject the claim, a failure the court deemed a forfeiture of arguments they could have made. The court expressly stated it did not need to decide whether it agreed with the merits of every claim.
Because respondents had not met their burden under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 to show cause why the writ should not issue, the court granted the petition. The order directed entry of judgment (a) granting the petition; (b) ordering respondents to immediately release Zhao subject to the same conditions, if any, in effect at her arrest; (c) ordering return of confiscated property and documents; (d) enjoining re-detention without written notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter; and (e) requiring a status report within two business days confirming release.
Key Takeaways
- The petition was granted because respondents failed to appear, answer, or offer any factual or legal basis to reject Zhao's detention claim.
- The court relied on the party-presentation principle and forfeiture, expressly declining to decide whether it agreed with the merits of every claim.
- The holding rested on respondents' failure to satisfy the § 2243 show-cause burden, not a full merits adjudication of the due-process claims.
- Judgment was entered granting the petition and ordering immediate release on the same conditions, if any, that applied when Zhao was arrested.
- Any re-detention was enjoined unless respondents comply with applicable law, including written notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how a detained noncitizen can obtain habeas relief when the government defaults: the grant rested on the respondents' failure to meet the § 2243 show-cause burden, not a broad merits ruling that all similarly situated detainees must prevail. The court discussed due-process principles and Mathews but did not undertake a factor-by-factor resolution of Zhao's claims.
The relief extended beyond release to return of property, conditions on any lawful re-detention, and prompt compliance reporting. The order did not separately adjudicate the substantive due-process claim or resolve the asylum application, and it sourced the background facts to the petition rather than making independent findings after an adversarial dispute.