Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26cv0414 DMS 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
ARA ASRATYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; Pamela BONDI,
U.S. Attorney General; Todd LYONS,
Acting Director, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; Daniel A.
BRIGHTMAN, Director, San Diego Field
Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal
Operations; Jeremy CASEY, Warden,
Imperial Regional Detention Center;
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR
IMMIGRATION REVIEW;
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT; and U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26cv0414 DMS JLB
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Respondents filed a return to the Petition, and Petitioner filed a traverse.
Case 3:26-cv-00414-DMS-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26cv0414 DMS 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
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Armenia and also a citizen of Russia. (Pet. at 2.)
On August 30, 2024, he appeared for his CBP One appointment at the U.S.-Mexico border
with his sister and his mother, where he requested asylum. (Id. at 10.) Petitioner’s sister
and mother were paroled, but Petitioner was detained at Imperial Regional Detention
Facility and placed in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. (Id.)
After a hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”) on January 17, 2025, the IJ
granted Petitioner’s request for asylum. (Id.) The Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”) appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which
remanded the case to the IJ because the record was incomplete. (Id. at 10-11.) On remand,
the IJ denied Petitioner’s request for asylum, granted his request for withholding of
removal to Armenia, and ordered Petitioner removed to Russia, or in the alternative,
Armenia. (Return, Ex. C.) Petitioner appealed that decision to the BIA, and that appeal is
pending.
On January 23, 2026, Petitioner filed the present case arguing that his detention,
which has continued uninterrupted since August 30, 2024, violates his substantive and
procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. He seeks an order from this
Court directing Respondents to either release him from custody or provide him with a bond
hearing. Respondents contend the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252(g). They also assert Petitioner’s detention is mandated by 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2), and under that statute Petitioner effectively has no due process rights. To the
extent Petitioner has any due process rights related to prolonged detention, Respondents
claim his detention has not been unconstitutionally prolonged.
As Petitioner pointed out in his Traverse, the present case is similar to another case
that came before this Court, Dogan v. LaRose, Case No. 25-cv-3525 DMS BJW. In that
case, the petitioner was detained after crossing the border without inspection and then
placed in removal proceedings. Dogan, ECF No. 7 at 1-2. After nearly a year in detention,
the petitioner filed a habeas case asserting his continued detention violated his rights under
the Fifth Amendment. The respondents offered arguments similar to those made here,
Case 3:26-cv-00414-DMS-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26cv0414 DMS 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
which the Court rejected. Instead, the Court granted the petition, finding the petitioner’s
continued detention violated his due process rights. The reasoning of Dogan applies
equally to the facts of this case, and the Court adopts that reasoning here to reach the same
conclusion: Petitioner’s detention for nearly 18 months violates his due process rights
under the Fifth Amendment. To remedy that violation, Respondents are directed to arrange
an individualized 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. In that
Report, the parties shall also provide their respective positions on whether a further order
on the Petition is necessary or if the case may be dismissed as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 18, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00414-DMS-JLB Document 6 Filed 02/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3