Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-01164

#1

Feb 23, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Pamela Bondi, Daniel A. Brightman, Christopher LaRose, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-20821598.), filed by Iurii Fartushin. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A Parole Document, # 3 Exhibit B Asylum Receipt)The new case number is 3:26-cv-1164-JO-BJW. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Brian J. White are assigned to the case. (McGoldrick, Brian)(anh) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

#2

Feb 24, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On February 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting injunctive relief. Dkt. 1. The Court ORDERS Petitioner to serve Respondents with the habeas petition [Dkt. 1] by 5:00 PM on February 27, 2026, and file proof of service. Petitioner must also serve the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California by a method prescribed in Rule 4(i)(1)(A) by that date and file proof of service.The Court ORDERS Respondents TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted by filing a written response no later than 5:00 PM on Friday, March 6, 2026. The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file, as exhibits to their response, the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records necessary for adjudication of this habeas petition, including all Department of Homeland Security records, immigration court documents, arrest or custody records, and any other materials pertaining to Petitioner's detention, processing, or removal proceedings. Unless Respondents concede that Petitioner is entitled to the complete relief requested in the habeas petition, Respondents must comply with this order by filing the complete set of Petitioner's immigration records.The Court SETS a hearing with oral argument for Thursday, March 12, 2026 at 9:30 AM. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing, which will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. Parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM the day before to the hearing. The Court ORDERS that Petitioner shall not be transferred out of this District unless Respondents provide advance notice of the intended move. Such notice shall be filed in writing on the docket in this proceeding and shall state the reason why Respondents believe that such a movement is necessary and should not be stayed pending further court proceedings. Once that notice has been docketed, Petitioner SHALL NOT be moved out of this District for a period of at least 48 hours from the time of that docketing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 2/24/2026. (rh) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

Feb 24, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#3

Feb 27, 2026

Acknowledgment of Service AND Affidavit of Service

#4

Mar 10, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Iurii Fartushin filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention as a violation of due process. See Dkt. 1 ("Pet."). The government did not file a response. 1. On July 23, 2021, Petitioner entered the United States to seek asylum and was immediately detained by immigration officials. See Pet. ¶ 2. He was subsequently released on humanitarian parole and granted work authorization pending his removal proceedings. See id. ¶¶ 2-3. On November 23, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained Petitioner while he was working a delivery job at Camp Pendleton, although his asylum proceedings remain pending. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. He has been detained without a bond hearing at the Otay Mesa Detention Center since that time. Id. 2. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that (i) 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality and legality of his current detention; and (ii) Petitioner is subject to the discretionary detention framework of § 1226 because he was already residing in the United States at the time of his November 23, 2025 arrest. See Pet. ¶¶ 4-5. 3. For the reasons stated on the record in Mirzaie v. LaRose, No. 3:25-cv-02568, Dkts. 27-28, the Court examines whether the government violated Petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking his release on humanitarian parole without an individualized determination and written notice that he had violated the conditions of his release. As explained in Mirzaie, the Court considers the Mathews v Eldridge factors to determine whether a procedural due process violation has occurred. See 424 U.S. 319, 321 (1976) (due process analysis considers (1) "the private interest that will be affected by the [government] action"; (2) "the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards"; and (3) "the Government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail."). Here, Petitioner held a protectable interest in remaining at liberty absent changes rendering him a security risk or a risk of absconding, the completion of his asylum proceedings, or a determination that humanitarian reasons and public benefit no longer warranted his continued presence in the country. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e); Y-Z-L-H v. Bostock, 792 F.Supp.3d 1123, 1144-45 (D. Or. 2025). The absence of any individualized determination significantly risked erroneously depriving Petitioner of his liberty interest, and the government has offered no evidence that the burdens of providing such process would outweigh this substantial liberty interest. Because the Court finds that Petitioner has been subjected to unconstitutional detention since his arrest on November 23, 2025, it grants his petition for habeas corpus and orders his immediate release.The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 5. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 03/10/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

#5

Mar 10, 2026

Order

Mar 10, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Terminate Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#6

Mar 19, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court ORDERS Respondents to file an affidavit attesting to Petitioner's release by 5 p.m. on March 23, 2026. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 03/19/2026. (rh) (Entered: 03/19/2026)

Mar 19, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#7

Mar 23, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Mar 23, 2026

Status Report