Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
_______________________
VIACHESLAV SPIRIN,
Petitioner,
v. 	No. 26-cv-0226 KWR-DLM
WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center,
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Officer Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, El Paso
Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; TODD LYONS, Acting Director
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
Of Homeland Security; AND PAMELA BONDI,
U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents, 1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Viacheslav Spirin’s pro se Letter-Petition
Seeking Release from Immigration Detention (Doc. 1) (Letter-Petition). 	Petitioner is detained at
the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico. 	He arrived in the United States
in 2023 using the CBP-One Program for asylum seekers. 	Immigration officials granted a
withholding of removal, which means Petitioner is not removable to his home country, but he is
still subject to removal when immigration officials can find a third country that will accept him.
See Us v. Doll, 2018 WL 1400539, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2018) (“withholding of removal only
1 The Court substitutes the above-mentioned parties as Respondents in this pro se case. 	See Torres-Torres
v. Miller, 2020 WL 4430519 (D.N.M. July 31, 2020) (discussing the party respondents in an immigration
habeas case); Lowmaster v. Dir., Bureau of Prisons, 2024 WL 5135970, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 17, 2024) (“the
Court notes that it routinely substitutes the” proper parties as “respondent in habeas cases”); Danderson v.
Page, 2024 WL 3913051, at *2 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2024) (substituting the proper party respondent in a
habeas case).
Case 2:26-cv-00226-KWR-DLM Document 3 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
means that the alien may not be sent to his home country where he faces a danger; he still remains
subject to the order of removal and may be sent to a safe third country that will accept him”);
Reyna-Salgado v. Noem, 2025 WL 2550346, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 11, 2025) (analyzing whether
detention was prolonged where the petitioner was subject to a “withholding of removal” order for
his home country, and immigration officials were attempting to find an alternative country).
Petitioner alleges he has been in detention since July 11, 2025, which exceeds the presumptively
reasonable immigration detention period of six months. 	See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001) (establishing the six-month period); Reyna-Salgado, 2025 WL 2550346, at *1 (D. Kan.
Aug. 11, 2025) (Applying Zadvydas where petitioner was subject to a “withholding of removal”
order). 	Petitioner further alleges immigration officials are still looking for a third country that
will accept him.
Construed liberally, the Letter-Petition raises a challenge to Petitioner’s continued
immigration detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	See Jiang v. Bondi, 2025 WL 3281819, at *1
(D.N.M. Nov. 25, 2025) (“Habeas review is proper where an immigration detainee is” allegedly
in custody in violation of Zadvydas). 	And, while the Letter-Petition is fairly brief, the alleged
facts are sufficient to survive initial review under Habeas Rule 4. 	See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701
(after a “6-month period, once the [petitioner] provides good reason to believe that there is no
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must
respond with evidence sufficient to rebut [th]e showing” that the custody is unconstitutional). 	The
Clerk’s Office has electronically served Respondents by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using
the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. 	See Doc. 2. 	The United
States Attorney’s Office (USAO) shall answer the Petition within twenty-one (21) days of entry
Case 2:26-cv-00226-KWR-DLM Document 3 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
of this Order. 	Petitioner may file an optional reply within ten (10) days after the answer brief is
filed. 	If the USAO declines to timely respond, the Court may enter a separate order granting a
release from custody.
The Court also notes that Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 habeas filing fee or, alternatively,
filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 	Petitioner must cure this deficiency within thirty
(30) days of entry of this Order. 	All mailings to the Court shall include the case number (No. 26-
cv-0226 KWR-DLM) and be labeled as legal mail.
IT IS ORDERED that the USAO shall answer the Petition within twenty-one (21) days
of entry of this Order; and Petitioner may file an optional reply within ten (10) days after the
response is filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order, Petitioner
shall pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall ADD the additional party
Respondents set forth in the caption of this Order.
___/S/_________________________________
HON. KEA RIGGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00226-KWR-DLM Document 3 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 3