Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Gul Naz Akbari, a native and citizen of Afghanistan who fled the Taliban regime, entered the United States on or about May 21, 2025, and has remained in civil immigration detention since that date. After she expressed a fear of return to Afghanistan, an immigration judge vacated a negative credible fear determination and placed her in standard removal proceedings. Her case was continued sixteen times, and the court found the eight-month delay between her arrest and her first master calendar hearing on January 28, 2026 wholly unexplained and attributable to the government. During nearly eighteen months of custody she experienced numerous mental health crises, including a suicide attempt while in Customs and Border Patrol custody, substantial weight loss, high blood pressure, and difficulty obtaining adequate medical care.
Akbari filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 17, 2026, challenging her prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing on both procedural and substantive due process grounds. On October 13, 2026, an immigration judge denied her asylum application but granted her withholding of removal based on her political opinion supporting women's rights and Hazara rights in Afghanistan, finding it more likely than not she would face persecution; the government stated it did not intend to appeal that grant. The magistrate judge ordered supplemental briefing on the reasons for the delays, any government appeal, third-country removal efforts, and her substantive due process claim, which the government's filings did not meaningfully address.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge applied a five-factor balancing test to decide whether Akbari's ongoing detention violated substantive due process: (1) the length of detention and whether it is excessive in relation to its regulatory purpose; (2) the government's contribution to delay; (3) the evidence supporting detention based on flight risk or danger; (4) whether less harsh alternatives could protect the government's interests; and (5) the conditions of detention. The court found her over-seventeen-month detention undoubtedly prolonged, with the unexplained eight-month delay before her first hearing attributable to the government plus additional delays after her transfer to California City Detention Facility. It found no evidence of any criminal record or dangerousness, and substantial evidence of a U.S.-citizen sponsor and community support undermining any flight risk, particularly given the grant of withholding of removal.
The court also found viable alternatives to detention, including housing and transportation assistance in two communities, electronic monitoring, and standard conditions of release. On conditions of confinement, it credited Akbari's account of exceptionally harsh and unsanitary detention, her ongoing suicide risk, and a May 2026 California Department of Justice report describing prison-like conditions at California City, consistent with court decisions finding conditions there equivalent to or worse than those for convicted criminals. Balancing the factors, the court concluded that the absence of evidence of danger or flight risk, the availability of community support, and the uncontested evidence of her ongoing suicide risk firmly outweighed the government's purposes in continuing detention, rendering it excessive in relation to its purpose in violation of the Due Process Clause. The magistrate judge therefore recommended granting the habeas petition on the substantive due process and prolonged detention counts with immediate release under standard conditions of supervision, and separately ordered denial of the motion for appointment of counsel as unnecessary.
Key Takeaways
- Civil immigration detention exceeding seventeen months without any bond hearing can violate substantive due process when it is no longer reasonably related to the purposes of preventing flight and protecting the community.
- A grant of withholding of removal significantly undermines the government's justification for continued detention because it reduces both the likelihood of removal and any associated flight risk.
- Courts in the Eastern District of California apply a five-factor balancing test, originally developed in the Northern District, to evaluate whether prolonged immigration detention has become punitive.
- Prison-like conditions at the California City Detention Facility, as documented in a California Department of Justice report and multiple court decisions, can support a finding that civil detention is unconstitutionally punitive.
- The government bears responsibility for unexplained delays in removal proceedings, and such delays weigh against continued detention in the substantive due process analysis.
Why It Matters
This decision adds to a growing body of case law in the Eastern District of California and the Ninth Circuit holding that prolonged mandatory immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) can violate substantive due process when it becomes excessive in relation to its regulatory purposes. It demonstrates that even detention authorized by statute is subject to constitutional limits, and that courts will scrutinize the government's contribution to delays, the absence of individualized findings of dangerousness or flight risk, and harsh conditions of confinement.
The recommendation of immediate release rather than merely a bond hearing reflects the court's conclusion that the balance of factors so strongly favored the petitioner that no lesser remedy would suffice. The decision also highlights the significance of conditions at the California City Detention Facility and underscores that a grant of withholding of removal materially changes the calculus justifying continued civil detention.