Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mohammad Bayani, a noncitizen detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 14, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The petition was assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05870-JES-VET and filed as ECF No. 1. Bayani named as respondents U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche; Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin; Todd Lyons, Acting Director of ICE; Daniel Brightman, Field Office Director of the San Diego ICE office; Jorge Velarde, Assistant Field Office Director of the Otay Mesa ICE office; Christopher LaRose, Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Center; the Executive Office for Immigration Review; and the U.S. Departments of Homeland Security and ICE.
The respondents filed a response, ECF No. 4, in which they stated that they could not ascertain sufficient facts, at that time, to establish that there was a significant likelihood of effectuating Bayani's removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the government acknowledged that Bayani was entitled to be released from custody subject to conditions of supervision under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(h)(1).
The court resolved the petition in a two-page order dated October 30, 2026, that was filed on November 2, 2026, deciding the matter on the government's concession without any hearing described in the order.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Bayani's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The operative basis was the respondents' own acknowledgment that they could not establish a significant likelihood of effectuating his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Under Zadvydas v. Davis, continued detention cannot be sustained when removal is not reasonably foreseeable, and the respondents conceded that Bayani was therefore entitled to release from custody subject to conditions of supervision.
The court then issued a mandatory directive: the respondents were ordered to immediately release Bayani from custody, subject to reasonable conditions of supervision. The release obligation was immediate as to timing but conditional as to supervision, meaning Bayani would remain under government oversight after leaving physical detention.
The order concluded with two administrative directives. The parties were ordered to file a joint status report on or before November 6, 2026, confirming that Bayani had been released, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case, making the ruling a final disposition of the habeas proceeding.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the § 2241 petition outright, so Bayani prevailed on his habeas claim against the government respondents.
- The release order was immediate but subject to reasonable conditions of supervision, not an unconditional release.
- The decisive fact was the government's concession that it could not show a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the standard associated with Zadvydas v. Davis.
- The parties must file a joint status report by November 6, 2026, confirming that the release has occurred.
- The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case, concluding the habeas proceeding as a final matter.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how the Zadvydas principle operates in practice: when the government itself acknowledges that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, continued detention cannot be sustained and a habeas petitioner is entitled to release under supervision. Because the respondents conceded the point, the court could grant relief without resolving disputed factual questions, anchoring the legal basis in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(h)(1).
For Bayani, the ruling means immediate release from immigration custody subject to supervision conditions, with a joint status report due November 6, 2026, to confirm compliance, and the case closed by the clerk. The disposition binds the named respondents, including the warden of the detention facility, and is final as to the petition.