Abdulaziz Abduraimov v. Tonya Andrews

Abduraimov v. Andrews · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · October 14, 2025 · No. 1:25-cv-00843-EPG-HC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considers a federal immigration detainee’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing. The court denies the respondent’s motion to dismiss and grants the petition in part, directing that the petitioner receive a bond hearing before an immigration judge at which the government must justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence, or otherwise release him under appropriate conditions.

Holdings

  1. Jennings v. Rodriguez and Demore v. Kim did not foreclose petitioner's as-applied constitutional challenge to prolonged detention under § 1225(b), because Jennings rejected a statutory bond-hearing interpretation without deciding the constitutional arguments, and Demore addressed a facial challenge involving materially shorter detention under § 1226(c).
  2. Petitioner's continued mandatory detention under § 1225(b), without an individualized bond hearing, had become unreasonable and violated procedural due process; petitioner was therefore entitled to a bond hearing.
  3. At the bond hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community to justify continued detention. If petitioner is not dangerous and is not such a great flight risk as to require detention without bond, the immigration judge should consider petitioner's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted because Supreme Court precedent foreclosed petitioner's as-applied constitutional challenge to prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
  2. Whether petitioner's approximately twenty-four months of mandatory detention under § 1225(b), without an individualized bond hearing, violated procedural due process.
  3. Whether due process required the government to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence at a bond hearing and required consideration of petitioner's financial circumstances or alternative conditions of release if detention was not otherwise justified.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (20)

  • Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 287-88, 297-98, 306, 312 (2018)(distinguished)
  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 684-86, 689, 701 (2001)(followed)
  • Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 513-14, 526, 529-30, 532 (2003)(distinguished)
  • Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010)(discussed)
  • Rodriguez v. Robbins, 804 F.3d 1060, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015)(informative)
  • Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011)(discussed)
  • Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 255-56 (9th Cir. 2018)(followed)
  • Martinez v. Clark, 36 F.4th 1219, 1223, 1231 (9th Cir. 2022), vacated on other grounds, 144 S. Ct. 1339 (2024)(followed)
  • Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 420 (2019)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 20.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…