Izar Khan v. Luis Soto, et al.

Izar Khan v. Luis Soto, No. 26-0856 (SDW) (D.N.J. Feb. 19, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · February 19, 2026 · No. Civil Action No. 26-0856 (SDW)

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey grants Izar Khan’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Applying the German Santos factors, the court finds that the length and likely continuation of detention, together with the conditions of confinement, render the detention unreasonably prolonged and orders an individualized bond hearing within seven days, with the government bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.

Holdings

  1. The court had jurisdiction because Khan was detained within the district, his custodian was within the district, and he alleged that his custody violated due process.
  2. Although noncitizens detained under § 1225(b) have no statutory right to a bond hearing, prolonged detention may become arbitrary and violate due process, requiring an individualized bond hearing.
  3. Respondents must provide Khan with an individualized bond hearing and must establish by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is necessary because Khan poses a flight risk or danger to the community.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 over Khan's challenge to his immigration detention.
  2. Whether Khan's detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) had become so prolonged and arbitrary as to violate due process.
  3. Whether Khan was entitled to an individualized bond hearing at which the government would bear the burden of proving that continued detention was necessary.
  4. Whether the court needed to reach Khan's separate claim that ICE denied or failed to meaningfully consider parole.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (11)

  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)(cited)
  • German Santos v. Warden Pike County Correctional Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 211-14 (3d Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989)(followed)
  • Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018)(followed)
  • Rodriguez Chavez v. Holman, No. 1:25-cv-00267, 2026 WL 136902, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2026)(followed)
  • Tuser E. v. Rodriguez, 370 F. Supp. 3d 435, 442-43 (D.N.J. 2019)(followed)
  • Ibrahim v. Rokosky, et al., No. 25-cv-17189, 2026 WL 296506, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2026)(followed)
  • Geincharles v. Rokosky, No. 26-cv-00150, 2026 WL 266093, at *4 (D.N.J. Feb. 2, 2026)(cited)
  • Dryden v. Green, 321 F. Supp. 3d 496, 502 (D.N.J. 2018)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…