Anzorov v. LaRose et al

1
26-cv-159-RSH-JLB
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
IBRAGIM BAUDINOVICH ANZOROV,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior Warden,
Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-159-RSH-JLB
ORDER DIRECTING RELEASE
OF PETITIONER
On January 10, 2026, petitioner Ibragim Baudinovich Anzorov filed a petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. After
receiving briefing from the Parties, on January 23, 2026, the Court granted the Petition.
ECF No. 5. The Court’s order concluded as follows:
Respondents are directed to arrange a bond hearing for petitioner
Ibragim Baudinovich Anzorov before an immigration court pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven (7) days of this order as described
above. To the extent Petitioner seeks further relief, he shall file a
supplemental brief promptly after receiving the bond hearing, or
promptly after the seven days provided herein has lapsed without a
hearing. Such supplemental brief shall specifically address the legal and
factual basis for each further form of relief sought.
Id. at 1-2.
Case 3:26-cv-00159-RSH-JLB Document 11 Filed 03/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

2
26-cv-159-RSH-JLB
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
On February 7, 2026, Petitioner made a supplemental filing. ECF No. 7. Petitioner
stated that a bond hearing had taken place but that bond was denied. Id. at 2–3. Petitioner
further stated that the Court had misconstrued the Petition as requesting a bond hearing,
and that Petitioner was and is requesting his release. Id. at 2.
On February 9, 2026, the Court invited further briefing and evidence from the
Parties. ECF No. 8. The Parties thereafter filed supplemental briefs. ECF Nos. 9, 10.
Among the claims presented in Petitioner’s supplemental brief is the claim that, to
the extent Petitioner’s arrest on November 5, 2025, was intended to constitute a revocation
of his humanitarian parole, Respondents failed to comply with the procedural requirements
imposed by the applicable federal regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i). See ECF No. 9 at
17. That regulation provides as follows:
(e) Termination of parole—
(1) Automatic. Parole shall be automatically terminated without written
notice (i) upon the departure from the United States of the alien, or, (ii)
if not departed, at the expiration of the time for which parole was
authorized, and in the latter case the alien shall be processed in
accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section except that no written
notice shall be required.
(2)(i) On notice. In cases not covered by paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, upon accomplishment of the purpose for which parole was
authorized or when in the opinion of one of the officials listed in
paragraph (a) of this section, neither humanitarian reasons nor public
benefit warrants the continued presence of the alien in the United
States, parole shall be terminated upon written notice to the alien and
he or she shall be restored to the status that he or she had at the time of
parole. When a charging document is served on the alien, the charging
document will constitute written notice of termination of parole, unless
otherwise 	specified. 	Any 	further 	inspection 	or 	hearing 	shall 	be
conducted under section 235 or 240 of the Act and this chapter, or any
order of exclusion, deportation, or removal previously entered shall be
executed. If the exclusion, deportation, or removal order cannot be
executed within a reasonable time, the alien shall again be released on
parole unless in the opinion of the official listed in paragraph (a) of this
section the public interest requires that the alien be continued in
Case 3:26-cv-00159-RSH-JLB Document 11 Filed 03/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

3
26-cv-159-RSH-JLB
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
custody.
8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e) (emphasis added). Petitioner’s supplemental brief argues that the
conditions for revocation of his humanitarian parole were not met here, and that in any
case, he received no written notification of a revocation. ECF No. 9 at 17-18. Although the
original Petition had included a citation to this regulation, ECF No. 1 ¶ 36, the Court did
not read the original Petition as presenting this argument, and Respondents’ initial return
did not address it either.
Petitioner’s supplemental brief is supported by a declaration from Petitioner
describing the circumstances of his arrest, and stating that at that time he was given no
notice or explanation, written or otherwise, for his arrest or detention. ECF No. 9-1 at 3-4.
On March 6, 2026, Respondents timely filed a supplemental brief. ECF No. 10.
Respondents’ supplemental brief does not dispute the facts put forward by Petitioner, or
contend that Petitioner’s humanitarian parole was revoked in compliance with federal
regulations; instead, Respondents candidly state as follows:
Respondents are aware that this Court has ordered the release of a
noncitizen in a similar position to the Petitioner (i.e., an individual
initially detained by Immigration officials, released on parole, and then
later re-detained after a passage of time). See Delfin-Ricardo v. Noem,
No. 26-cv-136-RSH-BJW, 2026 WL 353357 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2026)
(concluding 	the re-detention 	of 	a petitioner who 	was 	previously
released by Immigration Officials was without adequate notice).
Respondents respectfully have no further argument to present in
response to Petitioner’s supplemental briefing.
Id. at 2. Respondents’ supplemental brief also reminds Petitioner that, if he is released and
fails to appear for his next hearing in immigration court, he is subject to a denial of his
pending applications for relief in absentia. Id.
Government agencies are required to follow their own regulations. United States ex
rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268 (1954); Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v.
Norton, 340 F.3d 835, 852 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts have determined, in cases where DHS
Case 3:26-cv-00159-RSH-JLB Document 11 Filed 03/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

4
26-cv-159-RSH-JLB
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
fails to follow its own regulations in revoking humanitarian parole, that the resulting
detention is unlawful and the petitioner’s release should be ordered. See Y-Z-L-H v.
Bostock, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1145-46 (D. Or. 2025); Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d
1146, 1167-68 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025); Salazar v. Casey, No. 25-CV-2784 JLS (VET),
2025 WL 3063629, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025). This Court reaches the same result.
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ordered to
release petitioner Ibragim Baudinovich Anzorov from custody within one (1) day of the
date of this order, on the same conditions previously imposed or on such other conditions
as may be warranted for release on recognizance. The Court declines to enjoin Respondents
from enrolling Petitioner in the Alternatives to Detention Program as requested by
Petitioner, as Petitioner has not established that he is entitled to such relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00159-RSH-JLB Document 11 Filed 03/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4