Moskovyan v. Noem et al

1
3:25-cv-03537-RBM-AHG
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
AVETIK ARUTYUNOVICH
MOSKOVYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-03537-RBM-AHG
ORDER GRANTING HABEAS
PETITION
[Doc. 1]
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	are 	Petitioner 	Avetik 	Arutyunovich 	Moskovyan’s
(“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Doc. 1) and Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO Motion”) (Doc. 2). The Petition and the TRO Motion seek the
same relief—Petitioner’s release from detention.
For the reasons set forth below, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED and the TRO
Motion (Doc. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner was born in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (“USSR”) and
first arrived in the United States in 1988 as a refugee. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Petitioner received
Case 3:25-cv-03537-RBM-AHG Document 8 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
3:25-cv-03537-RBM-AHG
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
his lawful permanent residency in or around 1990. 	(Id.) 	“On August 19, 2013, he was
sentenced to 76 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, for a
money laundering conspiracy offense in the Southern District of Georgia.” (Id.) Petitioner
was then released from prison on April 8, 2019, and transferred to ICE detention. (Id.) On
May 31, 2019, Petitioner was ordered removed to Armenia. (Id.; see Doc. 5-1 at 2.) He
was subsequently “held in immigration custody for an additional nine and a half months,
until he filed and won a pro se habeas petition.” (Doc. 1 at 2.)
On January 23, 2020, Petitioner was released from ICE detention on an Order of
Supervision. (Id.; see Doc. 5-2 at 4.) Shortly thereafter, Petitioner was informed that he
needed to check-in with ICE every three months. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Petitioner checked in twice
with ICE before he was told not to report in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id.)
On October 15, 2025, Petitioner was re-detained by ICE at Camp Pendleton while
he was dropping off a passenger as a driver for Lyft. (Id. at 3.) After his arrest, Petitioner
told the ICE officers that he had won a habeas petition in 2019. 	(Id.) 	The officers
responded, “that was during the Biden administration, and that they were now under the
Trump administration.” 	(Id.) 	Petitioner was provided with a Notice of Revocation of
Release on October 16, 2025, which erroneously states that he was granted withholding of
removal to Armenia. (Doc. 5 at 2; see Doc. 5-2 at 2.) Petitioner has not had an opportunity
to contest his re-detention, spoken to an immigration judge, or been given any paperwork.
(Id. at 4.) Petitioner remains detained in the Otay Mesa Detention Center. (Doc. 5 at 2.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 2).
“The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that
custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
custody.” 	Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “Writs of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The petitioner bears the
Case 3:25-cv-03537-RBM-AHG Document 8 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
3:25-cv-03537-RBM-AHG
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
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner claims his current detention violates his statutory and regulatory rights,
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
(Doc. 1 at 4.) 	Respondents acknowledge that “Petitioner was not provided an accurate
Notice of Revocation of Release or provided an informal interview regarding the reason
for the revocation of his release.” (Doc. 5 at 4 (citing Doc. 5-4, Declaration of Jason Cole
[“Cole Decl.”] ¶ 13).) They also assert that “ICE has worked as expeditiously as possible
to execute his removal to Armenia” and “[i]f ICE is unable to obtain a travel document
from the Armenian government, it will seek to identify a third country where Petitioner
may be removed.” (Id. (citing Cole Decl. [Doc. 5-4] ¶¶ 14–17).)
This Court has recently granted several habeas petitions filed by similarly situated
petitioners based on ICE’s failure to follow its own regulations in revoking the petitioner’s
release. 	For example, in Ghafouri, the Court determined that ICE failed to follow its
regulations because: (1) the petitioner was not provided adequate notice when he received
a Notice of Revocation of Release containing incorrect information; and (2) ICE did not
conduct an informal interview or provide the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the
reasons for his re-detention. 	Ghafouri v. Noem, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02675-RBM-BLM,
2025 WL 3085726, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025).
Here, it is undisputed that Respondents did not provide Petitioner with an informal
interview or an accurate notice of revocation. (See Doc. 5 at 4; Cole Decl. [Doc. 5-4] ¶ 13.)
Like in Ghafouri, the Notice of Revocation of Release that Petitioner received erroneously
stated that he was granted withholding of removal. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner has also not been
provided with an informal interview to respond to the reasons for the revocation of his
release. (Id.) The Court therefore adopts its reasoning in Ghafouri and applies it here. For
those same reasons, ICE’s failure to comply with its regulations in revoking Petitioner’s
release violated Petitioner’s due process rights and rendered his detention unlawful.
Case 3:25-cv-03537-RBM-AHG Document 8 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
3:25-cv-03537-RBM-AHG
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
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Accordingly:
1. Respondents are 	ORDERED 	to immediately release Petitioner from custody,
subject to his preexisting Order of Supervision.
2. Petitioner’s TRO Motion (Doc. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 8, 2026
___________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03537-RBM-AHG Document 8 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4