1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DMITRY VLASOV, Case No.: 25-cv-1342-AJB-MSB Petitioner, 12 ORDER: v. 13 (1) GRANTING PETITION FOR PAM BONDI, Attorney General of the 14 HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. No. 1); United States, et al.,

15 Respondents. (2) DENYING AS MOOT 16 PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 17 ORDER (Doc No. 5); and 18 (3) DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST 19 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Doc. 20 No. 7). 21 22

23 24 Petitioner Dmitry Vlasov (“Petitioner”), appearing pro se, is a detainee in the 25 custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Bureau of 26 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), at the San Luis Regional Detention 27 Center in Arizona. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 23, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of 28 habeas corpus under

(the “Petition”), seeking relief due to prolonged 1 detention in immigration custody pending removal. (Id.) Petitioner seeks a writ directing 2 his immediate release from ICE custody. (Id.) Respondents opposed the Petition. (Doc. No. 3 7.) Petitioner did not file a reply. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the 4 instant matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument. 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Russia. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner alleges that ICE 7 is impermissibly detaining him beyond the legally allowed timeframe. (Id.) Petitioner 8 contends that his continued detention is unconstitutional pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 9

(2001). (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) 10 On August 13, 2024, Petitioner, his wife, and son were passengers in a car that was 11 stopped at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. (Doc. No. 7-1.) Due to housing limitations, 12 Petitioner’s wife and son were placed in removal proceedings and released from custody. 13 (Id. at 3.) A query of the California Border Patrol database indicated that Petitioner had no 14 prior immigration apprehensions and no prior criminal records. (Id. at 3–4.) On August 19, 15 2024, Petitioner was taken into ICE custody. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner was afforded a 16 credible fear interview by a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officer. 17 (Doc. No. 7-1 at 4–5.) On August 29, 2024, based on a positive determination by the U.S. 18 Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officer, Petitioner was placed in removal 19 proceedings where he presented his credible fear claim in hearings before an Immigration 20 Judge on September 9, October 10, October 21, November 22, and November 26, 2024. 21 (Id. at 7–11.) The Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s asylum claim and ordered him 22 removed from the United States. (Doc. 7-1 at 13.) However, the Immigration Judge also 23 found that Petitioner would likely be harmed and would face political persecution on 24 account of his political opinions if he were to return to Russia. (Id. at 13, 15.) Accordingly, 25 the Immigration Judge withheld Petitioner’s removal to Russia. (Id. at 16.) Petitioner 26 asserts that although DHS appealed the Immigration Judge’s decision, DHS withdrew its 27 28 1 appeal on January 14, 2025, making the Immigration Judge’s decision final as of that date. 2 (Id.) 3 On July 7, 2025, ICE informed Respondents that it had exhausted efforts to remove 4 Petitioner from the United States to countries other than Russia. (Doc. No. 7 at 3.) On July 5 9, 2025, local ICE counsel informed Respondents that ICE intended to release Petitioner 6 from custody and expected the review and approval process “to be completed within about 7 ten days.” (Id.) On July 23, 2025, Respondents filed a status report indicating that 8 Petitioner’s approval and release has not taken place within the 10 days previously 9 prescribed and stated that it asked the local Joint Terrorism Task Force for confirmation of 10 vetting for Petitioner’s release. (Doc. No. 11.) Respondents indicated that they would 11 receive updated information within a week. (Id.) On August 1, 2025, Respondents filed a 12 second status report stating that “ICE Headquarters advised that they continue to actively 13 pursue third country resettlement of Petitioner” and Respondents would “notify the Court 14 when Petitioner has been released and, if he has not been released by September 2, 2025, 15 will provide the Court with a status report.” (Doc. No. 13.) 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 To succeed on a habeas petition, a petitioner must show that he is “in custody in 18 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2241(c)(3). A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the 20 “legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox,

(9th Cir. 1991) 21 (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973)). However, the petition must 22 “allege the facts concerning the applicant’s commitment or detention,”

, 23 and the petitioner must make specific factual allegations that would entitle him to habeas 24 corpus relief if they are true. O’Bremski v. Maass,

(9th Cir. 1990) 25 26

27 1 Respondents provide that the removal order became final and executable on December 27, 2024. (Doc. 28 1 The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) permits detention of noncitizens 2 present in the United States during immigration proceedings.

(b), 1226(a), 3 1226(c), 1231(a). Under

, a noncitizen who is ordered removed shall be 4 removed by DHS within 90 days.

(a)(1)(A). During the removal period, 5 the noncitizen must be detained.

(a)(1)(A). Section 1231 governs detention 6 during this 90-day removal period, which begins on the latest of either “(1) the date a 7 noncitizen’s ‘order of removal becomes administratively final,’ (2) the date of a court’s 8 final order, if the noncitizen's removal order is judicially reviewed and this court stays the 9 noncitizen's removal, or (3) the date the noncitizen is released from criminal detention or 10 confinement.” Avilez v. Garland,

, 531 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing 8 U.S.C. 11 § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i)–(iii)). If the Government fails to remove the noncitizen during those 90 12 days, the statute only authorizes further detention if the noncitizen is: (1) “inadmissible” 13 under certain grounds, (2) “removable” as a result of violations of status requirements or 14 entry conditions, violations of criminal law, or reasons of security or foreign policy, or (3) 15 has been “determined by the Attorney General to be a risk to the community or unlikely to 16 comply with the order of removal.”

(a)(6); Zadvydas v. Davis,

678, 682, (2001). 18 In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court addressed whether there was a limit to the 19 time a noncitizen can be detained after the initial 90-day removal period expires.

at 682. The Court held that the statute limits a noncitizen’s “post-removal-period detention 21 to a period reasonably necessary to bring about [their] removal from the United States.” Id. 22 at 689. “[T]he statute ‘does not permit indefinite detention.’” Xi v. U.S. Immigration & 23 Naturalization Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Zadvydas,

689). A noncitizen may only be held in confinement until “it has been determined that there 25 is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Zadvydas, 533 26 U.S. at 701. A six-month period of detention is presumptively reasonable. Id. 27 /// 28 1 When detention exceeds this presumptively reasonable period, the noncitizen’s 2 “continued detention is permissible if his removal is reasonably foreseeable.” Xi,

at 839 (citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699–701). “An alien is entitled to habeas relief after a 4 presumptively reasonable six-month period of detention under § 1231(a)(6) only upon 5 demonstration that the detention is ‘indefinite’—i.e., that there is ‘good reason to believe 6 that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.’” 7 Diouf v. Mukasey,

(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Zadvydas,

701). The noncitizen has the initial burden to “provide[ ] good reason to believe that there 9 is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Zadvydas, 533 10 U.S. at 701. If the noncitizen satisfies the initial burden, then the Government “must 11 respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. If the Government fails to meet 12 its burden, then the non-citizen must be released from detention. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 13

(2018). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 Respondents argue that Petitioner’s habeas petition is subject to dismissal because it 16 was filed prematurely (on May 23, 2025), and the presumptively reasonable removal period 17 (until June 26, 2025) had not yet elapsed. (Doc. No. 6 at 4.) The Court finds this argument 18 unavailing. Although the presumptive period had not lapsed when the Petitioner filed his 19 petition for habeas relief, over two months have now passed, and he remains in 20 confinement. See Trinh v. Homan,

, 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (“At no 21 point did the Zadvydas Court preclude a noncitizen from challenging their detention before 22 the end of the presumptively reasonable six-month period.”). Petitioner has now been 23 detained for more than seven months. Accordingly, Petitioner has been held in confinement 24 beyond the presumptively reasonable period and is entitled to habeas relief if he can 25 demonstrate that the detention is “indefinite” such that there is “good reason to believe that 26 there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” 27 Zadvydas,

. 28 1 Based on Respondents’ representations, Petitioner has established that he is not 2 likely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. In responding the Petition, 3 Respondents provide that “ICE has exhausted its efforts to remove Petitioner to a country 4 other than Russia.” (Doc No. 4.) Respondents also state that Petitioner “does not face 5 imminent removal,” and “ICE is preparing to release him from custody, having exhausted 6 efforts to remove him to countries other than Russia.” (Id. at 5, 6). Respondents argue that 7 Petitioner’s anticipated release from custody will render this case moot. (Id. at 4.) However, 8 it appears that Respondents’ have changed course and no longer anticipate releasing 9 Petitioner. According to Respondents’ August 1, 2025 status report, ICE is once again 10 actively pursuing third country resettlement of Petitioner, but it appears that they intend to 11 keep Petitioner in custody. (Doc. No. 13 (If Petitioner “has not been released by September 12 2, 2025, [Respondents’] will provide the Court with a status report.”). The Court also notes 13 that Petitioner does not present with any criminal history, does not appear to be a risk to 14 the community, and Respondents do not provide any evidence to suggest that Petitioner is 15 unlikely to comply with the order of removal. See

(a)(6). Because 16 Respondents specifically state that Petitioner does not face imminent removal and they 17 have exhausted efforts to remove Petitioner to a country other than Russia, it is apparent 18 that Petitioner’s removal is not foreseeable. Moreover, Respondents offer no factual basis 19 to support Petitioner’s continued detention. Accordingly, Petitioner’s “continued detention 20 [is] unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute.” 533 U.S. at 699–700. 21 IV. CONCLUSION 22 Petitioner’s continued detention is unreasonable and unauthorized. Petitioner is thus 23 entitled to be released from custody. The Court therefore GRANTS the Petition for habeas 24 relief. (Doc. No. 1.) Accordingly, the Court issues a writ of habeas corpus requiring 25 26 27 28 1 ||Petitioner’s immediate release from custody subject to “appropriate conditions” of 2 || supervision to be determined by immigration authorities. See

(h).? 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: August 7, 2025

6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ||° Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 5) and Request for Immediate Release (Doc. No. 12) are DENIED AS MOOT.