ORDER REQUIRING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Mudeer Hussain's ("Petitioner") Emergency Motion to Enforce Habeas Order ("Emergency Motion"). (Doc. 8.) The Court requires supplemental briefing to rule on the Emergency Motion.
Petitioner argues that his bond hearing did not comply with the Court's previous Order granting his Petition or with due process because, among other things, "[n]o interpreter was provided despite a contemporaneous request and undisputed language barrier." (Id. at 2.) Even if the Court found that the lack of an interpreter constituted a due process violation, it must also consider whether Petitioner was prejudiced. See Perez- Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring the petitioner to demonstrate how an incompetent translation prejudiced the outcome of his removal proceedings); Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1058 (9th Cir. 2005) ("For us to grant the
Page 1 of 2
petition for review on due process grounds, Petitioner must show prejudice . . .). A noncitizen "suffers prejudice if the violation 'potentially . . . affect[s] the outcome of the proceedings.'" Perez-Lastor, 208 F.3d at 780 (quoting Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis and alterations in Perez-Lastor)).
Petitioner does not explain how the lack of an interpreter at his bond hearing prejudiced the outcome of that hearing, nor does he cite any authority to suggest that prejudice may be presumed under the circumstances. Accordingly, Petitioner SHALL FILE a supplemental brief addressing prejudice on or before May 8, 2026. Respondents
SHALL FILE a response to the supplemental brief on or before May 15, 2026. The supplemental briefs shall not exceed 10 pages, exclusive of exhibits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 8, 2026 ___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2