Drozd v. Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, Detroit Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

<!-- PageHeader="Case: 4:26-cv-02003-DCN Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/08/26 1 of 5. PageID #: < pageID>" -->

# IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

YURY DROZD,

)

CASE NO. 4:26 CV 2003

)

Petitioner,

)

)

v.

)

JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

) )

)

)

Respondents.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

)

AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by
Petitioner, Yury Drozd. (Docket #1.) Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his detention by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

## Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioner is a citizen and national of Belarus. (Docket #1 at Paragraph 1.) On May 23,
2022, Petitioner applied for admission into the United States at the Calexico West Port of Entry.
(Docket #1 at Paragraph 2.) After inspection, Petitioner was deemed inadmissible pursuant to
Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). Section

212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) states that alien immigrants who do not possess a valid unexpired immigrant
visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document, and a

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO
ES

<!-- PageBreak -->

Case: 4:26-cv-02003-DCN Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/08/26 2 of 5. PageID #: < pageID>

valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and
nationality if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General
under section 211(a) [8 USCS § 1181(a)], are inadmissible. (Docket #1-1.) Pursuant to Section
212(d)(5) of the INA, Petitioner was released from custody on parole1 and was issued a Notice to
Appear, requiring that he appear before an Immigration Judge in Phoenix, Arizona on August 2,
2022. (Id.) Petitioner timely applied for asylum. (Docket #1 at Paragraph 36.)

Following the issuance of the Notice to Appear, Petitioner lived in Glendale, Arizona and
later relocated to Ohio. (Docket #1 at Paragraph 3, 37.) On June 6, 2025, 3 years after he had
entered the United States, Petitioner was arrested and charged with assault, aggravated
trespassing, and vandalism - Parma, Ohio Municipal Court Case No. 25CRB01569. A
temporary criminal protection order was issued. (Docket #1 at Paragraph 4; Docket #1-2.) The
Court has no detail regarding the underlying circumstances which led to Petitioner's arrest and
criminal charges. Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty. (Docket #1-2.)

Petitioner posted bond within a week of his arrest and was then detained by the
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). (Docket #3 at p. 2.) The documentation prepared
by DHS at the time of his detention, Form I-213, states that Petitioner "is removable pursuant to
section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act" as "an alien present in the United
States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place
other than as designated by the Attorney General." (Docket #3-3.) Form I-213 also states that
Petitioner is to "remain in custody until he goes before an Immigration Judge for a custody
redetermination."

1
Respondent states Petitioner was paroled into the United States for one year.
(Docket #3 at p. 2.)

<!-- PageBreak -->

Case: 4:26-cv-02003-DCN Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/08/26 3 of 5. PageID #: < pageID>

Due to the fact that he was in DHS custody, Petitioner failed to appear in the Parma
Municipal Court for a pretrial on July 14, 2025 and a warrant for his arrest was issued. On
August 4, 2025, his attorney filed a Motion of Availability with the Parma Municipal Court.
(Docket #1-2.) On October 20, 2025, the criminal charges against Petitioner were dismissed
without prejudice and the Criminal Protection Order was later vacated. (Id.) As noted by
Petitioner, the Parma Municipal Court Docket is silent as to why the criminal charges against
Petitioner were dismissed. (Docket #3-2.) However, Respondent asserts that the dismissal was
due to the fact that Petitioner was in DHS detention. (Docket #3 at p.2.)

On January 23, 2026, following a hearing before an Immigration Judge, Petitioner was
ordered to be removed pursuant to Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA. (Docket #3-4.)
Petitioner filed an appeal of that decision with the Board of Immigration Appeal and awaits a
decision.

On August 21, 2026, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 with this Court. (Docket #1.) Petitioner claims his detention is governed by 28
U.S.C § 1226 and, therefore, that his continued detention without a bond hearing is unlawful
(Claim I). In the alternative, Petitioner argues that his alternative that his continued detention
under Section 1225(b)(2) violates his Fifth Amendment due process rights. (Claim II.) On
August 31, 2026, Respondents filed their Response. (Docket #3.) On September 1, 2026,
Petitioner filed a Reply Brief. (Docket #4.)

## Discussion

A writ of habeas corpus is a civil mechanism that assesses the legality of a person's
detention. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2; Ex parte Bollman and Ex parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. 75,
2 L. Ed. 554 (1807). It is "available to every individual detained within the United States[,]"

<!-- PageBreak -->

Case: 4:26-cv-02003-DCN Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/08/26 4 of 5. PageID #: < pageID>

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004), including noncitizens in immigration proceedings.
See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") governs habeas petitions in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §§
2241-2256. A petition filed pursuant to Section 2241 petition allows a person to challenge the
execution, administration, or condition of their detention. See id. A district court may grant
habeas relief under § 2241 when, inter alia, a person has carried the burden of showing their
detention violates the Constitution or laws of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

## Conclusion

Pursuant to the holding in Lopez-Camps v. Raycraft, 175 F.4th 713 (6th Cir. 2026), 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner's detention and he is entitled to an individualized bond
hearing. Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket #1) filed by Petitioner is
hereby granted as follows:

Respondents are hereby directed to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing2 under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 14 days of this Order, with notice to the Parties as soon as practicable
but no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing.

2
The events that led to the Petitioner's arrest on June 6, 2025 are unknown to the
Court. While the materials submitted by the Parties do not suggest that Petitioner is
subject to detention under 8 U.S.C § 1226(c), the Immigration Court will be able to assess
the circumstances underlying the Parma Municipal Court charges of assault, aggravated
trespassing and vandalism that were filed against Petitioner and preceded his detention by
DHS. The Court is also mindful of the fact that Petitioner was ordered to be removed
pursuant to Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA and awaits decision on appeal. The
Immigration Court will be able to assess Petitioner's ties to the area and whether he poses
a flight risk.

<!-- PageBreak -->

Case: 4:26-cv-02003-DCN Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/08/26 5 of 5. PageID #: < pageID>

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Wirral C. Hayal
DONALD C. NUGENT
United States District Judge

DATED:
October 8, 2026