Nigiematulina v. Noem et al

- 1 - 26cv0359
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
RENATA NIGIEMATULINA,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-00359-BAS-BJW
ORDER:
(1) 	CLARIFYING JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 8);
(2) 	GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION
TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 9); AND
(3) 	GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
(ECF No. 10)
Petitioner Renata Nigiematulina filed a renewed Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her immigration detention. 	(Pet., ECF No. 1.)
Petitioner is a Russian national who is subject to a final order of removal, but she was
granted withholding of removal to Russia. (Id., Ex. C.)
After a hearing, the Court granted the Petition on January 30, 2026. (ECF No. 6.)
The Court found Petitioner’s detention violated Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001),
Case 3:26-cv-00359-BAS-BJW Document 11 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

- 2 - 26cv0359
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
because there was no reasonable likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
(Id.) The Court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner and found it appropriate to grant
the following permanent injunctive relief:
Respondents 	are 	PROHIBITED 	from removing 	Renata Nigiematulina,
A244-037-142, without providing Petitioner and her counsel with notice of
the country Respondents plan to remove her to and an opportunity to be heard.
Respondents are PROHIBITED from re-detaining Renata Nigiematulina,
A244-037-142, for removal unless Respondents have obtained a travel
document to effectuate removal.
(Id.)
On February 26, 2026, Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion to Enforce the
Judgment. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner’s counsel states that on the morning of February 26,
Petitioner “was arrested at an ICE check-in in Los Angeles and informed she was being
deported to Moldova.” (Id.) It is not clear whether Respondents have a travel document
for removal to Moldova. (See id.) The same day, Petitioner filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order. (ECF No. 10.)
Together, the Motions ask the Court to order Respondents to release Petitioner “if
they do not possess a travel document to Moldova.” 	(ECF No. 9.) 	Alternatively, if
Respondents do have a travel document, Petitioner asks the Court to grant various relief,
including “a meaningful opportunity, and a minimum of ten days,” to raise a fear-based
claim for protection prior to removal to Moldova. (Id.)
The Court has “continuing jurisdiction to enforce [its] injunctions.” 	Crawford v.
Honig, 37 F.3d 485, 488 (9th Cir. 1994). Petitioner “has the burden of showing by clear
and convincing evidence” that Respondents “violated a specific and definite order of the
court.” See Stone v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992).
The burden then shifts to Respondents “to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.”
See id.
Here, the Court’s injunctive relief did not prohibit Respondents from re-detaining
Petitioner in any circumstances. 	Rather, they are prohibited from re-detaining her “for
Case 3:26-cv-00359-BAS-BJW Document 11 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

- 3 - 26cv0359
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
removal unless Respondents have obtained a travel document to effectuate removal.” (ECF
No. 6.) 	Petitioner’s filings do not show, “by clear and convincing evidence,” that
Respondents violated this prohibition. 	See Stone, 968 F.2d at 856 n.9. Hence, Petitioner
has not met her initial burden on this point.
Even 	so, 	the 	Court’s 	injunctive 	relief 	prohibits 	removal 	“without 	providing
Petitioner and her counsel with notice of the country Respondents plan to remove her to
and an opportunity to be heard.” (ECF No. 6.) In similar cases before this Court, there has
been some uncertainty as to what “notice” entails. The original intent of the Court’s order
was to provide a meaningful opportunity for Petitioner and her counsel to raise an objection
to the country identified for removal. See Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 770–71
(9th Cir. 2021) (explaining the process for non-citizens “whose prior removal order has
been reinstated” to raise a claim of “‘reasonable fear’ of persecution or torture in the
designated country of removal”). The Court has since specified in comparable cases that
Respondents must provide the petitioners and their counsel “notice at least ten days before
removal to give them a meaningful opportunity to raise opposition to the third country.”
See Subedi v. Noem, No. 26-cv-00569-BAS-VET (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2026). As mentioned,
Petitioner’s Motions likewise seek a ten-day period to be specified here. (ECF No. 9.)
Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to clarify its injunctive relief as follows:
Respondents 	are 	PROHIBITED 	from removing 	Renata Nigiematulina,
A244-037-142, without providing Petitioner and her counsel with notice of
the country Respondents plan to remove her to and an opportunity to be heard.
Respondents are ordered to give Petitioner and her counsel said notice at least
ten days before removal to give them a meaningful opportunity to raise
opposition to the third country.
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
Petitioner’s Emergency Motion to Enforce the Judgment (ECF No. 9) and Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 10).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 27, 2026 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-00359-BAS-BJW Document 11 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3