Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-02214

#1

Apr 08, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Christopher J. Larose ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ACASDC-21008887.), filed by Kseniia Rumiantseva. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)The new case number is 3:26-cv-2214-JO-DEB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher are assigned to the case. (Zohrabyan, Naira)(gsw) (anh). (Entered: 04/08/2026)

#2

Apr 08, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts the Standard Procedures for this Immigration Habeas Petition from Chief Judge Order No. 144, which is available on the court's website with the following modification: Any optional reply will be due 3 days after the government's opposition. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the Petition for April 30, 2026 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 4C. 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 the hearing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/8/2026. (mk) (Entered: 04/08/2026)

Apr 08, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#3

Apr 14, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

Apr 14, 2026

Response to Petition

#5

Apr 27, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Kseniia Rumiantseva filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging her prolonged detention as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition. 1. On September 22, 2024, Petitioner entered the United States and was immediately detained by immigration officials. Dkt. 1 P. 1. On June 18, 2025, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed to Russia and denied Petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal. Dkt. 1-3 at 2-5. On July 3, 2025, Petitioner appealed this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), and her appeal remains pending to this day. Id. at. As a result, Petitioner has remained in immigration custody without a bond hearing for over 18 months. Id.2. For the reasons stated in Faizi v. Larose et al., No. 25-cv-2974-JO-MSB, Dkt. 13 at 3-5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026), the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) and (g) do not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality and legality of her current detention. 3. Further, for the reasons stated in Faizi, No. 25-cv-2974-JO-MSB, Dkt. 13 at 5-11, the Court examines whether, notwithstanding statutory authorization, Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause. As explained in Faizi, the Court considers the likely duration of detention---both elapsed and anticipated---and whether Petitioner has delayed proceedings in bad faith. Id. Here, Petitioner has been detained for over 18 months, and her appeal has been pending before the BIA for over nine months. See Dkt. 1-3. Further appeals from either side would extend detention by at least several months, such that the total period of confinement could approach or exceed two years without any showing of undue or bad faith delay by Petitioner. This duration of civil detention without a bond hearing gravely risks the erroneous deprivation of Petitioner's liberty interest, especially here when the record contains no evidence that she presents a danger to the community or a flight risk or that the government has another legitimate interest in her continued detention. See Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 994 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2025) ("Detention for its own sake... is not a legitimate government interest."). The Court therefore finds that Petitioner's prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates her Fifth Amendment due process rights. The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 6. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/27/2026. (mk) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#6

Apr 27, 2026

ORDER Granting Habeas Petition [Dkt. 1]. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/27/2026. (mk) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

Apr 27, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#7

May 05, 2026

Notice (Other)

#8

May 16, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#9

May 18, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: On May 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to enforce judgment [Dkt. 8]. The Court sets a hearing on the motion for Tuesday, June 9, 2026 at 9:30 AM before Judge Jinsook Ohta. The parties shall appear by teleconference. The courtroom deputy will provide details regarding teleconference access prior to the hearing.The Court sets the following briefing schedule on the motion to enforce [Dkt. 8]: Respondent's opposition is due by May 25, 2026, and Petitioner's reply is due by May 28, 2026. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 5/18/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/18/2026)

May 18, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#10

May 22, 2026

Response in Opposition to Motion