Artur Sorvandov v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; Field Office Director, Immigration Customs Enforcement San Diego
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from ill
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee who argued that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violated due process. The court granted the petition, ordering the government to provide an individualized bond hearing within ten days where the government bears the burden of proof.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ORDERS as follows:” | agree with court The court found that the petitioner's detention of over seven months under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) had become unreasonable, triggering a due process requirement for an individualized bond hearing. This aligns with the Ninth Circuit's holding in *Singh v. Holder* and the district court's prior decision in *Sandesh v. LaRose*, which the court incorporated by reference. The government's non-opposition to a bond hearing further supported the grant of relief. |
Order to provide individualized bond hearing within ten days“The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond determination hearing within ten days of this Order;” | agree with court This is a standard remedial order following a finding of unreasonable detention. The ten-day timeframe is reasonable and consistent with similar orders in the district. |
Burden of proof placed on government at bond hearing“At the hearing, the government SHALL BEAR the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk if released;” | agree with court The court applied the standard from *Singh v. Holder*, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011), which requires the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee is a danger or flight risk. This is the correct legal standard for bond hearings in this context. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and relies on well-established Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it incorporates the reasoning of a prior unpublished district court order (*Sandesh*) by reference rather than articulating the legal analysis itself. While this is common practice, it makes the order less self-contained. The court correctly identifies the applicable legal standard from *Singh* and applies it to the facts (detention over seven months). The government's non-opposition to a bond hearing simplifies the analysis, but the court still correctly affirms the due process requirement for an individualized hearing after prolonged detention.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTUR SORVANDOV, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1339-JES-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 14 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER; FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, 15 IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS [ECF No. 1] 16 ENFORCEMENT SAN DIEGO, 17 Respondent. 18 19 20 21 22 23 Before the Court is Petitioner Artur Sorvandov’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 24 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). ECF No. 1, (“Pet.”). Since he entered the country 25 on August 14, 2025, Petitioner has been detained by Respondents (the “Government”). Pet. 26 at 6. Although he has received a positive credible fear determination, Respondents have 27 not provided him with a bond hearing. Id. Petitioner seeks habeas relief from the Court as 28 he argues that his prolonged detention violates his due process rights. Id. at 6-7. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 3 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 4 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 5 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 6 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of 7 habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the 8 Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas 9 corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in 10 that context that its protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 11 (2001). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within the purview 12 of a district court's habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see 13 also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 Pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 2.), Respondents filed a 16 Response. ECF No. 6, (“Res.”). In the Response, the Government maintains that Petitioner 17 is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1225(b) but also expresses 18 its non-opposition to the Court ordering a bond hearing in this matter. Res. at 1-2. 19 The Court finds that this issue has been addressed by the undersigned in a recent 20 decision, Sandesh v. LaRose, No. 26-CV-0846-JES-DDL, 2026 WL 622690, at *1-6 (S.D. 21 Cal. Mar. 5, 2026). Therefore, the Court elects to follow the reasoning it stated in Sandesh 22 and incorporates it by reference. Id. 23 Based on the facts of this Petition, the Court makes the following findings: (1) 24 Petitioner is appropriately detained under Section 1225(b); (2) Petitioner's detention of 25 over seven months, under Section 1225(b), has become unreasonable and due process 26 requires the Government to provide him with an individualized bond hearing; and (3) it is 27 appropriate to continue to apply the standard set forth in Singh for bond hearings for 28 noncitizens that are similarly situated as Petitioner. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200 1 Cir. 2011); Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1099, 1120 (W.D. Wash. 2019); 2 || Sandesh, 2026 WL 622690, at *5. 3 Hf. CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and 5 |} ORDERS as follows: 6 (1) The Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with an 7 individualized bond determination hearing within ten days of this 8 Order; 9 (2) At the hearing, the government SHALL BEAR the burden of 10 establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger 11 to the community or a flight risk if released; 12 (3) The Immigration Judge SHALL consider alternative conditions of 13 release and Petitioner's ability to pay bond if he or she determines bond 14 is appropriate. 15 (4) Respondents SHALL make a complete record of the bond hearing 16 available to Petitioner and his counsel; 17 (5) Respondents are ORDERED to File a Notice of Compliance within 18 five days of providing Petitioner with the bond hearing, including 19 apprising the Court of the results of the hearing; and 20 (6) The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to CLOSE this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: March 27, 2026 24 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28