Vadim Sufiiarov v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03265
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VADIM SUFIIAROV, Case No.: 25cv3265-LL-DDL

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

14 WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center,

et al. 15 [ECF No. 1] Respondents. 16 17 18 Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Vadim Sufiiarov’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed a Return in 20 opposition to the Petition. ECF No. 5. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 21 the Petition. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Petitioner is a Russian national who has been detained at Otay Mesa Detention 24 Center since he entered the country through an appointment on the CBP One app seeking 25 asylum on January 1, 2025. Pet. at 6, 9. He was placed into removal proceedings under 26 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (“240 proceedings”) when he was issued a Notice to Appear. 27 ECF No. 1-1 at 2. 28 / / / 1 On May 22, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security’s moved to dismiss 2 proceedings without prejudice, indicating that Petitioner was eligible instead for expedited 3 removal. Id. The immigration judge granted the motion, which Petitioner appealed without 4 success. Id. at 2–3. Shortly after his appeal was dismissed, DHS placed Petitioner in 5 expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A). ECF No. 5 at 2. 6 After Petitioner was interviewed and found to have a credible fear of persecution, he 7 was issued a new Notice to Appear on October 21, 2025, charging him as an arriving alien 8 inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (without valid entry documents). Id. at 9 2–3. Petitioner filed an asylum application, which is currently pending, and a merit hearing 10 is scheduled for February 25, 2026. Id. at 3. Petitioner remains mandatorily detained under 11 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Id. 12 On November 21, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, alleging that his 13 prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process 14 Clause. Pet. at 6–7. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to immediately 15 release him from custody. Id. at 7, 9. 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus when a petitioner “is in custody 18 in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2241(c); Magana-Pizano v. I.N.S., 200 F.3d 603, 609 (9th Cir. 1999) (“28 U.S.C. § 2241 20 expressly permits the federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to aliens when those 21 aliens are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 22 States.’”). In federal habeas proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proving his case 23 by a preponderance of evidence. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 970 n.16 (9th Cir. 24 2004); Bellew v. Gunn, 532 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1976) (citations omitted). 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 A. Jurisdiction 3 Respondents argue that as a threshold matter, Petitioner’s claims and requested relief 4 are jurisdictionally barred under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A).1 5 ECF No. 5 at 3–8. 6 1. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) 7 Section 1252(g) states that “[e]xcept as provided in this section and notwithstanding 8 any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, 9 or any other habeas corpus provision, . . . no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause 10 or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney 11 General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any 12 alien under this chapter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). 13 Respondents argue that Petitioner’s claims are barred because they arise “from the 14 decision or action of the Attorney General to commence proceedings [and] adjudicate 15 cases,” which removes district court jurisdiction. ECF No. 5 at 4. 16 The Court finds § 1252(g) does not bar its jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims. The 17 Supreme Court has explained that § 1252(g) does not bar jurisdiction for the “universe of 18 deportation claims” but instead “applies only to three discrete actions that the Attorney 19 General may take: her ‘decision or action’ to ‘commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or 20 execute removal orders.’” Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 21 482 (1999); see also Ibarra-Perez v. United States, No. 24-631, 2025 WL 2461663, at *2 22 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2025) (“The Supreme Court has instructed that we should read § 1252(g) 23 narrowly.”). The Supreme Court later reiterated this narrow application of § 1252(g): 24 25 1 Respondents also argue in a footnote that the Court should dismiss the Petition for lack 26 of jurisdiction because Petitioner named the warden of his detention facility as a respondent 27 instead of providing the warden’s actual name. ECF No. 5 a 3 n.1. This is not a situation in which Petitioner has named the wrong public official, and so the Court finds that 28 1 “We did not interpret this language to sweep in any claim that can technically be said to 2 ‘arise from’ the three listed actions of the Attorney General. Instead, we read the language 3 to refer to just those three specific actions themselves.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 4 281, 294 (2018) (citation omitted). Petitioner is not challenging the commencement of 5 removal proceedings but is instead claiming a lack of legal authority to subject him to 6 prolonged detention without a bond hearing during proceedings. See Ibarra-Perez, 2025 7 WL 2461663, at *2 (noting that a claim based on a lack of legal authority to execute a 8 removal order due to a violation of a court order, the Constitution, INA, or international 9 law, does not challenge the decision or action to execute a removal order). Therefore, 10 § 1252(g) does not limit the Court’s jurisdiction in this matter. 11 2. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) 12 Section 1252(a)(2)(A) provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review a 13 “cause or claim arising from or relating to the implementation or operation of an order of 14 removal pursuant to section 1225(b)(1)” except as provided in § 1252(e). 15 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A). Section 1252(e)(2) allows judicial review of expedited removal 16 orders under § 1225(b)(1) in habeas corpus proceedings only to determine (1) “whether the 17 petitioner is an alien,” (2) “whether the petitioner was ordered removed under such section, 18 and” (3) whether the petitioner can prove that he has been lawfully admitted as a permanent 19 resident, a refugee, or has been granted non-terminated asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2). 20 Respondents argue that “to the extent that the Petitioner challenges the dismissal of 21 his original 240 proceedings and the issuance of an expedited removal order, that claim is 22 foreclosed” by Section 1252(a)(2)(A). ECF No. 5 at 5. 23 The Court finds § 1252(a)(2)(A) does not bar its jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims. 24 Petitioner is not challenging an expedited order of removal because he has not received a 25 final expedited removal order, nor is he challenging the discretionary decision to place him 26 in expedited removal. Instead, Petitioner contends that his prolonged detention without a 27 bond hearing is in violation of the Constitution. “Where a petitioner ‘does not challenge 28 any final order of removal, but challenges his detention prior to the issuance of any such 1 order’ the jurisdiction-stripping provisions do not apply.” Noori v. LaRose, 2 No. 25-CV-1824-GPC-MSB, 2025 WL 2800149, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025) (quoting 3 Flores-Torres v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 711 (9th Cir. 2008)). Therefore, § 1252(a)(2)(A) 4 does not limit the Court’s jurisdiction in this matter. See Flores-Torres, 548 F.3d 5 at 710–11, 711 n.5; Gimenez Gil v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 6 No. 3:25-CV-03279-DMS-VET, 2025 WL 3675153, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2025); 7 Noori, 2025 WL 2800149, at *7–8. 8 B. Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause 9 Petitioner argues that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the 10 Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pet. at 6. 11 Respondents contend there is no due process violation because Petitioner is detained 12 pursuant to § 1225(b)(1), which mandates detention through the conclusion of the removal 13 process, and that is all the process he will receive. ECF No.5 at 8–10 14 The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be 15 “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. 16 “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in 17 deportation proceedings.” Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003) (citing Reno v. Flores, 18 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993)). “At the same time, however, this Court has recognized 19 detention during deportation proceedings as a constitutionally valid aspect of the 20 deportation process.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has questioned the constitutionality of certain 21 immigration detention statutes, including § 1225(b): 22 We have grave doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without any process is constitutional or that those who founded our 23 democracy precisely to protect against the government’s arbitrary deprivation 24 of liberty would have thought so. Arbitrary civil detention is not a feature of our American government. “[L]iberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial 25 or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” United States v. Salerno, 26 481 U.S. 739, 755, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). Civil detention violates due process outside of “certain special and narrow nonpunitive 27 circumstances.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690, 121 S. Ct. 2491, 150 28 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 1 Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 256–57 (9th Cir. 2018) (alteration in original). 2 The Court agrees with those courts that have found a noncitizen detained under 3 § 1225(b) for a prolonged period without an individualized bond hearing may assert a 4 constitutional right to due process. See Sadeqi v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2587-RSH-BJW, 5 2025 WL 3154520, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2025) (“This Court agrees with the majority 6 position that a petitioner detained under Section 1225(b)(1) may assert a due process 7 challenge to prolonged mandatory detention without a bond hearing.”); Maksin v. Warden, 8 Golden State Annex, No. 1:25-CV-00955-SKO (HC), 2025 WL 2879328, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 9 Oct. 9, 2025) (“Several courts including the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuit, as well as 10 numerous district courts, have found that unreasonably long detention periods may violate 11 the due process clause.” (collecting cases)); Abdul-Samed v. Warden of Golden State Annex 12 Det. Facility, No. 1:25-CV-00098-SAB-HC, 2025 WL 2099343, at *6 (E.D. Cal. 13 July 25, 2025) (“[E]ssentially all district courts that have considered the issue agree that 14 prolonged mandatory detention pending removal proceedings, without a bond hearing, 15 ‘will—at some point—violate the right to due process.’” (quoting Martinez v. Clark, 16 No. C18-1669-RAJ-MAT, 2019 WL 5968089, at *6 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2019), report 17 and recommendation adopted, No. 18-CV-01669-RAJ, 2019 WL 5962685 (W.D. Wash. 18 Nov. 13, 2019))); Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he 19 Court joins the majority of courts across the country in concluding that an unreasonably 20 prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an individualized bond hearing 21 violates due process.”); Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1116–17 (W.D. Wash. 22 2019). 23 Respondents rely on two cases to support his argument that § 1225(b)(1) and its 24 provision for mandatory detention provides all the process that Petitioner is due, but the 25 Court is not persuaded. ECF No. 5 at 9–10 (citing Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. 26 Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (2020) and Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 27 345 U.S. 206 (1953). In Thuraissigiam, the habeas petitioner argued that the Illegal 28 Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 violated “his right to due 1 process by precluding judicial review of his allegedly flawed credible-fear proceeding.” 2 Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 138. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner, as an 3 applicant for admission, was provided “the right to a determination whether he had a 4 significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum” pursuant to § 1225(b), and that 5 he had “only those rights regarding admission that Congress has provided by statute.” Id. 6 at 140 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (quoting §§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), (v)). 7 The Court finds Thuraissigiam addressed a noncitizen’s right to challenge admission, not 8 detention. See, e.g., Sadeqi, 2025 WL 3154520, at *2 (“This Court likewise agrees with 9 those district courts that interpret Thuraissigiam as circumscribing an arriving alien’s due 10 process rights to admission, rather than limiting that person’s ability to challenge 11 detention.”); Aviles-Mena v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06783-RFL, 2025 WL 2578215, at *4 12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025) (finding Thuraissigiam inapplicable to cases challenging 13 detention). 14 The Court finds Mezei is also distinguishable. Mezei involved a noncitizen who had 15 been “permanently excluded from the United States on security grounds but stranded in his 16 temporary haven on Ellis Island because other countries [would] not take him back.” Mezei, 17 345 U.S. at 207. The Supreme Court recognized Mezei’s exclusion for security reasons as 18 different from noncitizens who may be released from detention on bond. Id. at 216 (“An 19 exclusion proceeding grounded on danger to the national security, however, presents 20 different considerations; neither the rationale nor the statutory authority for such release 21 exists.”). The facts are significantly different because Petitioner has not been excluded as 22 a security risk, does not have a final order of removal, and has been granted asylum. See 23 Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 413–14 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Mezei Court 24 explicitly grounded its decision in the special circumstances of a national emergency and 25 the determination by the Attorney General that Mezei presented a threat to national 26 security.”); Kydyrali, 499 F. Supp. 3d at 772 (finding Mezei inapposite to issue of whether 27 prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates due process). 28 / / / 1 Respondents contend that applying the three-factor balancing test discussed in Lopez 2 v. Garland, 631 F. Supp. 3d 870 (E.D. Cal. 2022) shows that Petitioner’s detention is not 3 unreasonably prolonged. ECF No. 5 at 10–11. 4 Courts in the Ninth Circuit have used various factor tests to determine whether due 5 process requires a bond hearing in immigration detention cases, including the Lopez test. 6 See e.g., Loba L.M. v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-00611 JLT SAB (HC), 2025 WL 3187577, 7 at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2025). In the Lopez test, the court considers “the total length 8 of detention to date, the likely duration of future detention, and the delays in the removal 9 proceedings caused by the petitioner and the government.” Lopez, 631 F. Supp. 3d at 879. 10 Petitioner has been in immigration detention since January 1, 2025, which is 11 approximately one year. Courts have found detentions of similar and shorter duration 12 without a bond hearing weigh toward a finding that they are unreasonable. See, e.g., Sadeqi 13 v. LaRose, 2025 WL 3154520, at *4 (finding detention of over eleven months weighs 14 toward a finding of unreasonableness); Tonoyan v. Andrews, No. 1:25-CV-00815-SKO 15 (HC), 2025 WL 3013684, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2025) (over eleven months); Lopez, 16 631 F. Supp. 3d at 879 (approximately one year); Masood v. Barr, No. 19-CV-07623-JD, 17 2020 WL 95633, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2020) (nearly nine months); Cabral v. Decker, 18 331 F. Supp. 3d 255, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (over seven months). Therefore, the Court finds 19 the length of detention weighs in favor of Petitioner. 20 Next, the Court considers the likely duration of future detention. Petitioner contends 21 that he does not know how long he will continue to be detained because his case has already 22 suffered delays and he “could be stuck here for another year or more.” Pet. at 9. Petitioner’s 23 asylum application is pending, and although there is a merits hearing on February 25, 2026, 24 that is no indication that Petitioner’s detention will end on that date. Although it is unclear 25 when removal proceedings will conclude, it will likely be a substantial amount of time 26 because it is unknown how long a decision on his asylum application will take, and either 27 side may appeal an unfavorable ruling. See Maksim v. Annex, No. 1:25-CV-00955-SKO 28 (HC), 2025 WL 2879328, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025) (finding determination of asylum 1 application and subsequent appeal could take a substantial amount of time). The Court 2 finds this factor weighs in favor of Petitioner. 3 Finally, the Court considers whether delays in the removal proceedings were caused 4 by Petitioner or the government. Five months after Petitioner was first detained and placed 5 in removal proceedings pursuant to § 1229a with a final hearing set for September 10, 6 2025, the government moved to dismiss his 240 proceedings in order to place him in 7 expedited removal. Pet. at 6; ECF No. 5 at 2. This resulted in Petitioner receiving a new 8 Notice to Appear on October 21, 2025, which effectively restarted the removal process. 9 ECF No. 5-2 at 22. Petitioner also caused some delay by appealing the dismissal of his 240 10 proceedings. The Court notes that the government did not move to dismiss the 240 11 proceedings until May 22, 2025, even though the reason for doing so occurred on January 12 24, 2025 when DHS issued an order designating certain classes of noncitizens like 13 Petitioner for expedited removal. See ECF Nos. 5 at 2; 5-2 at 16. The Court finds the 14 government could have moved to dismiss the 240 proceedings months earlier than it did. 15 In considering actions on both sides, the Court finds this delay factor weighs slightly in 16 favor of Petitioner. 17 With all three factors weighing in Petitioner’s favor, the Court finds that Petitioner’s 18 continued detention under § 1225(b)(1) has become unreasonable and due process requires 19 that Petitioner be provided with a bond hearing.2 See Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127, 20 1144 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e note that the discretionary parole system available to § 1225(b) 21 detainees is not sufficient to overcome the constitutional concerns raised by prolonged 22 mandatory detention.”). At the bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge, the 23 government “must justify his continued detention by a showing of clear and convincing 24 evidence that Petitioner would likely flee or pose a danger to the community if released.” 25

26 27 2 Although Petitioner requests immediate release from detention, he provides no authority to show he is entitled to such relief. The Court finds the appropriate remedy here is a bond 28 1 || Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 786 (9th Cir. 2024) (noting that due process requires “the 2 || government to prove dangerousness or risk of flight by clear and convincing evidence” at 3 |}a bond hearing for noncitizens subject to prolonged detention (citing Singh v. Holder, 4 F.3d 1196, 1200, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011))). 5 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Petition. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. 8 ||§ 2241 for an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. Within fourteen 9 ||days of this Order, Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized bond hearing 10 ||before a neutral immigration judge in which the government bears the burden of 11 establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community 12 || ora flight risk if released. Ifno hearing occurs within fourteen days of this Order, Petitioner 13 ||shall be released from Respondents’ custody. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: January 5, 2026 NO 16 DE | 17 Honorable Linda Lopez 8 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28