Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-1529-JES-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
EVGENII KOSHELEV,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN DOE, WARDEN OF THE OTAY
MESA DETENTION CENTER;
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,
SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), A
COMPONENT OF DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-1529-JES-MSB
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING
[ECF NOs. 1, 2]
Before the Court is Petitioner Evgenii Koshelev’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) and Motion for Immediate
Release or, alternatively, for a Bond Hearing (“Motion”). ECF Nos. 1, (“Pet.”), 2. Pursuant
Case 3:26-cv-01529-JES-MSB Document 6 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:26-cv-1529-JES-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
to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Respondents (the “Government”) filed the Response,
a Notice which expressed its non-opposition to a bond hearing for Petitioner. ECF Nos. 5.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a Russian national, was apprehended by Respondents and has been
subjected to mandatory detention since October 14, 2025. Pet. at 1-2. Petitioner is currently
being held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. Petitioner contends that, to date,
Respondents have not provided him with a bond determination hearing. Id. Accordingly,
Petitioner seeks habeas relief, contending that his continued detention violates the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Id.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Jurisdiction
Although Respondents do not challenge jurisdiction, the Court will address it sua
sponte. This very issue was discussed by the undersigned in a prior decision, Martinez
Lopez v. Noem, et al. No: 25-cv-2717-JES-AHG, 2025 WL 3030457, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct.
30, 2025). The Court, therefore, elects to follow its reasoning in Martinez Lopez and
incorporates it by reference. Id. at * 2; see also Beltran et al. v. Noem et al., No. 25CV2650-
LL-DEB, 2025 WL 3078837, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025) (holding the same).
Based on the facts of this Petition, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § (“Section”)1252's
jurisdiction stripping provisions do not bar it from considering Petitioner's habeas petition.
Further, the prudential administrative exhaustion requirement for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claims
is excused. Thus, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the Petition.
B. 	Petitioner is Entitled to a Bond Hearing
Petitioner argues that by continuing to detain him, without providing him with bond
hearing, the Government is violating his due process rights. Pet. at 1-2. In its Notice, the
Government indicates that it does not oppose the Court granting Petitioner a bond hearing.
ECF No. 5. Accordingly, the Court holds that Petitioner is entitled to, and will order
Respondents to provide him with, a bond hearing.
//
Case 3:26-cv-01529-JES-MSB Document 6 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:26-cv-1529-JES-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
C. 	Which Statute’s Standard Applies to the Bond Hearing
Having established that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing, the Court must now
determine which detention statute’s (i.e., Section 1225(b) or Section 1226(a)) standard the
immigration judge will apply in said hearing.
Here, Petitioner alleges to have no criminal history, established residence in the
United 	States, 	strong 	community 	ties, 	and 	complied 	with 	all 	prior 	immigration
requirements. Pet. at 2. While Petitioner fails to identify his immigration status, prior to
being 	detained, 	he 	avers 	that 	the 	Government 	has 	failed 	to 	show 	any 	changed
circumstances, violation of conditions, or lawful justification which warrant his continued
confinement. Id.; see generally Pet. On the one hand, construing these facts liberally, the
Court can reasonably infer and find—although, at this time, it does not do so—that
Petitioner was previously released from immigration custody on either bond or conditional
parole. See U.S.C. §§ 1226(a)(2)(A)-(B); see Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th
Cir. 2002). But on the other hand, Petitioner does not allege that he was apprehended while
in the interior of the country, and not at the border. This omission cuts against Petitioner’s
detention being governed by Section 1226(a).
It is also reasonable for the Court to infer that Petitioner’s detention is governed by
Section 1225(b). This is because of the length of Petitioner’s detention (i.e., since October
14, 2025, or more than five months) and one of Petitioner’s allegations. See Pet. at 1; id. at
2 (“ICE has failed to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing at which the
Government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner
poses either a danger to the community or a flight risk.”). Such a lengthy detention, without
the provision of a bond hearing, is, generally, appropriate for a noncitizen that is detained
under either Section 1226(c), 1225(b)(1), or 1231. But also, the standard under which
Petitioner requests his sought-after bond hearing to be conducted, supports the notion that
Petitioner is, indeed, detained under Section 1225(b). Pet. at 2; see Sandesh v. LaRose, No.
26-CV-0846-JES-DDL, 2026 WL 622690, at * 5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) (holding that in
a 	bond 	determination 	hearing 	under 	§ 	1225(b), 	to 	justify 	Petitioner’s 	continued
Case 3:26-cv-01529-JES-MSB Document 6 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:26-cv-1529-JES-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
confinement, the government has the burden of showing that Petitioner is a flight risk or a
danger to the community, by clear and convincing evidence).
Thus, as it stands, the record lacks sufficient information to for the Court to establish
which detention statute Petitioner is currently subject to, and which applies to his
forthcoming bond hearing. Accordingly, the Court seeks clarification from the parties and
ORDERS the parties to submit any additional evidence and/or briefing on this issue by no
later than March 24, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01529-JES-MSB Document 6 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4