Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVGENII KOSHELEV, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1529-JES-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 13 v. BRIEFING

14 JOHN DOE, WARDEN OF THE OTAY

MESA DETENTION CENTER; 15 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,

16 SECRETARY OF HOMELAND

SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND 17 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), A [ECF NOs. 1, 2] 18 COMPONENT OF DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 19 Respondents. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Before the Court is Petitioner Evgenii Koshelev’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of 27 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) and Motion for Immediate 28 Release or, alternatively, for a Bond Hearing (“Motion”). ECF Nos. 1, (“Pet.”), 2. Pursuant 1 to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Respondents (the “Government”) filed the Response, 2 a Notice which expressed its non-opposition to a bond hearing for Petitioner. ECF Nos. 5. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 Petitioner, a Russian national, was apprehended by Respondents and has been 5 subjected to mandatory detention since October 14, 2025. Pet. at 1-2. Petitioner is currently 6 being held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Id. Petitioner contends that, to date, 7 Respondents have not provided him with a bond determination hearing. Id. Accordingly, 8 Petitioner seeks habeas relief, contending that his continued detention violates the Due 9 Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Id. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 A. Jurisdiction 12 Although Respondents do not challenge jurisdiction, the Court will address it sua 13 sponte. This very issue was discussed by the undersigned in a prior decision, Martinez 14 Lopez v. Noem, et al. No: 25-cv-2717-JES-AHG, 2025 WL 3030457, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 15 30, 2025). The Court, therefore, elects to follow its reasoning in Martinez Lopez and 16 incorporates it by reference. Id. at * 2; see also Beltran et al. v. Noem et al., No. 25CV2650- 17 LL-DEB, 2025 WL 3078837, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025) (holding the same). 18 Based on the facts of this Petition, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § (“Section”)1252's 19 jurisdiction stripping provisions do not bar it from considering Petitioner's habeas petition. 20 Further, the prudential administrative exhaustion requirement for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claims 21 is excused. Thus, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the Petition. 22 B. Petitioner is Entitled to a Bond Hearing 23 Petitioner argues that by continuing to detain him, without providing him with bond 24 hearing, the Government is violating his due process rights. Pet. at 1-2. In its Notice, the 25 Government indicates that it does not oppose the Court granting Petitioner a bond hearing. 26 ECF No. 5. Accordingly, the Court holds that Petitioner is entitled to, and will order 27 Respondents to provide him with, a bond hearing. 28 // 1 C. Which Statute’s Standard Applies to the Bond Hearing 2 Having established that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing, the Court must now 3 determine which detention statute’s (i.e., Section 1225(b) or Section 1226(a)) standard the 4 immigration judge will apply in said hearing. 5 Here, Petitioner alleges to have no criminal history, established residence in the 6 United States, strong community ties, and complied with all prior immigration 7 requirements. Pet. at 2. While Petitioner fails to identify his immigration status, prior to 8 being detained, he avers that the Government has failed to show any changed 9 circumstances, violation of conditions, or lawful justification which warrant his continued 10 confinement. Id.; see generally Pet. On the one hand, construing these facts liberally, the 11 Court can reasonably infer and find—although, at this time, it does not do so—that 12 Petitioner was previously released from immigration custody on either bond or conditional 13 parole. See U.S.C. §§ 1226(a)(2)(A)-(B); see Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th 14 Cir. 2002). But on the other hand, Petitioner does not allege that he was apprehended while 15 in the interior of the country, and not at the border. This omission cuts against Petitioner’s 16 detention being governed by Section 1226(a). 17 It is also reasonable for the Court to infer that Petitioner’s detention is governed by 18 Section 1225(b). This is because of the length of Petitioner’s detention (i.e., since October 19 14, 2025, or more than five months) and one of Petitioner’s allegations. See Pet. at 1; id. at 20 2 (“ICE has failed to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing at which the 21 Government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner 22 poses either a danger to the community or a flight risk.”). Such a lengthy detention, without 23 the provision of a bond hearing, is, generally, appropriate for a noncitizen that is detained 24 under either Section 1226(c), 1225(b)(1), or 1231. But also, the standard under which 25 Petitioner requests his sought-after bond hearing to be conducted, supports the notion that 26 Petitioner is, indeed, detained under Section 1225(b). Pet. at 2; see Sandesh v. LaRose, No. 27 26-CV-0846-JES-DDL, 2026 WL 622690, at * 5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) (holding that in 28 a bond determination hearing under § 1225(b), to justify Petitioner’s continued 1 |}confinement, the government has the burden of showing that Petitioner is a flight risk or a 2 || danger to the community, by clear and convincing evidence). 3 Thus, as it stands, the record lacks sufficient information to for the Court to establish 4 ||which detention statute Petitioner is currently subject to, and which applies to his 5 || forthcoming bond hearing. Accordingly, the Court seeks clarification from the parties and 6 || ORDERS the parties to submit any additional evidence and/or briefing on this issue by no 7 || later than March 24, 2026. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: March 20, 2026 1] Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 2 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28