Ogandzhanian v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
26cv0093 DMS MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MIGANUSH OGANDZHANIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF OTAY MESA
DETENTION CENTER,
Respondent.
Case No.: 26cv0093 DMS MSB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Respondent filed a return to the Petition, and Petitioner, through counsel, filed a traverse.
As set out in the briefing, Petitioner is a citizen of Russia. (Return at 2.) On October
30, 2024, she entered the United States near San Ysidro, California without inspection by
an immigration officer where she was apprehended by border patrol agents and taken into
custody. (Id.) She is currently detained at Otay Mesa Detention Center. (Pet. at 1.) On
January 12, 2025, Petitioner had an initial hearing before an immigration judge, but that
hearing was continued to provide Petitioner an opportunity to seek counsel. (Return at 2.)
Petitioner next appeared with counsel, who later filed a motion to consolidate Petitioner’s
case with that of her husband, also an arriving alien in removal proceedings. (Id.) On June
16, 2025, Petitioner’s motion to consolidate was granted. (Id.) Her merits hearing was
Case 3:26-cv-00093-DMS-MSB Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26cv0093 DMS MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
then set for August 18, 2025, but has been continued several times. (Id.) It is currently set
for April 13, 2026. (Id.)
On January 7, 2026, Petitioner filed the present case seeking her release from
custody. She raises three claims: First, that her prolonged detention violates her due
process rights. Second, she argues her prolonged detention violates Zadvydas v. Davis,
533 U.S. 678 (2001), and 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Petitioner’s third claim is that her detention
violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). In response to the Petition,
Respondents raise a number of arguments. First, they argue the Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider Petitioner’s claim. Second, they assert Petitioner is lawfully detained under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b). Third, Respondents contend Petitioner’s detention has not been
unreasonably prolonged.
In De la Torre Duran v. Doe, Case No. 25cv3230 DMS (DDL), this Court addressed
claims and arguments similar to those raised here based on facts similar to those in this
case. In De la Torre Duran, the Court considered the factors set out in Banda v.
McAleenan, 385 F.Supp.3d 1099, 116-17 (W.D. Wash. 2019), to conclude the petitioner’s
continued detention without a bond hearing violated his due process rights. See De la Torre
Duran, ECF No. 11. Applying those factors to the present case results in the same
conclusion. Indeed, on the length of detention factor, Petitioner here has been detained for
fifteen months, more than three months longer than the petitioner in De la Torre Duran.
Under the reasoning of De la Torre Duran, which the Court applies to the present
case, the Court grants the Petition. Respondents are directed to arrange an individualized
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:26-cv-00093-DMS-MSB Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26cv0093 DMS MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration court within fourteen (14) days of this
Order. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report within twenty-one (21) days of
this Order’s entry confirming Petitioner received a bond hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 10, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00093-DMS-MSB Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3