1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VIKTOR GRISHCHENKO, Case No.: 25-cv-3514-JES-JLB

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, [ECF No. 1] 15 PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General, 16 TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 17 JESUS ROCHA, Acting Field Office 18 Director, San Diego Field Office, CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden at 19 Otay Mesa Detention Center, 20 Respondents. 21 22 23 24 25

26 Before the Court is Petitioner Viktor Grishchenko’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 27 Corpus pursuant to

, filed on December 10, 2025. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). 28 1 Respondents filed a return on December 16, 2025. ECF No. 9. Petitioner filed a traverse 2 on December 17, 2025. ECF No. 10. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 3 the Petition. 4 I. BACKGROUND 5 Petitioner is a citizen of Russia who entered the United States in April of 2023. Pet. 6 at 3; ECF No. 9 at 2. In December of 2024, Petitioner was taken into custody by 7 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). ECF No. 9 at 2. In May of 2025, 8 Petitioner was released on bond while his asylum case was pending.

9 On June 10, 2025, an immigration judge issued an order of removal against 10 Petitioner and also granted Petitioner withholding of removal to Russia under the 11 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Petitioner and DHS both waived appeal, making 12 the order final on that date.

13 Petitioner has been in custody since his final order of removal and withholding were 14 entered. Pet. at 3; ECF No. 9 at 2. Respondents have attempted to remove Petitioner to a 15 third country during this time, but have been unable to effectuate removal. ECF No. 9 at 2. 16 Specifically, San Diego Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) has requested 17 updates from the national ERO office regarding Petitioner’s third country removal on six 18 different occasions in 2025.

Respondents state that they are currently waiting on further 19 information regarding the possibility of third country removal.

20 II. LEGAL STANDARD 21 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 22 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,

(2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 23 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 24 custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” 25 Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus 26 to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal 27 law.

(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means 28 of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections 1 have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr,

(2001). Accordingly, challenges 2 to immigration-related detention are within the purview of a district court's habeas 3 jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis,

(2001); see also Demore v. Kim, 538

, 517 (2003). 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 Petitioner argues that his continued detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due 7 Process clause under the standard set forth by Zadyvdas because he has been detained for 8 over six months and Respondents have not shown a likelihood of effectuating his removal. 9 Pet. at 10; Zadvydas v. Davis,

(2001). The Court agrees. 10 Following a final order of removal against an alien, the government “shall remove 11 the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days.”

(a)(1)(A)- 12 (2)(A). The government may hold the alien in custody during the initial 90-day removal 13 period by statute.

In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that when the government is 14 unable to remove an alien within 90 days, the alien may seek review of the reasonableness 15 of their continued detention under the due process clause through petition for writ of habeas 16 corpus. 533 U.S. at 687. The Court instructed habeas courts to analyze whether continued 17 detention beyond the 90-day period “exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure 18 removal,” based on “the [removal detention] statute’s basic purpose, namely, assuring the 19 alien’s presence at the moment of removal.” Id. at 699. The Court has held that it is 20 presumptively reasonable for the government to detain an alien for a period of 6 months 21 while it works to effectuate his removal after issuing a final order of removal against him. 22 Id. at 701. Beyond that period, “if removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court should 23 hold continued detention unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute” and grant the 24 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 699-700. 25 Here, Petitioner has been in custody with a final order of removal since June 10, 26 2025, which is over six months at the time of this order. Pet. at 11. As the presumptively 27 reasonable time has elapsed, the Court must consider whether Respondents have shown 28 that Petitioner’s removal is reasonably foreseeable. See Zadvydas,

. 1 Respondents may not remove Petitioner to his home country of Russia under his CAT 2 withholding order. Pet. at 3. Respondents have tried to effectuate Petitioner’s third country 3 removal through requests to ERO on six occasions, to no avail. ECF No. 9 at 2. In their 4 response, Respondents do not identify any potential countries which might accept 5 Petitioner’s third country removal, or any factors related to Petitioner or people like him 6 which might make a future removal attempt successful when others have failed. See 7 generally, ECF No. 9. 8 Respondents argue that granting this Petition would be premature because they have 9 sent requests within ICE for assistance identifying further countries to which Petitioner 10 may be removed. ECF No. 9 at 5. However, the Government’s diligent and/or good faith 11 effort to remove an individual is not sufficient to show a significant likelihood of that 12 individual’s removal. See Conchas-Valdez v. Casey, No. 25-cv-02469-DMS-JLB, 2025

at * 3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2025) (citing Hassoun v. Sessions, No. 18-CV-586- 14 FPG,

, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2019)). With an order prohibiting 15 Petitioner’s removal to his country of citizenship, six unsuccessful requests to ERO to 16 effectuate his removal, and no individualized information showing a significant likelihood 17 of Petitioner’s removal to any other country, the Court cannot find that Respondents have 18 met their burden. See Zadvydas,

. Thus, the Petition is GRANTED on due 19 process grounds. 20 IV. CONCLUSION 21 For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. As 22 the requested relief available on habeas is granted, Petitioner’s remaining claims are moot. 23 Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to 24 his preexisting bond order. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 The Parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report no later than 5:00 p.m. on 2 || December 18, 2025, confirming that the Petitioner has been released. The Clerk of Court 3 |}is ORDERED to CLOSE this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: December 17, 2025

7 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

«