Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Armen Oganisyan, a Russian citizen, fled Russia due to government persecution and entered the United States on May 16, 2024, to seek asylum. On May 29, 2024, an asylum officer found he had a credible fear of persecution if returned to Russia. The Department of Homeland Security charged him as removable under INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) and released him into the United States. On September 28, 2026, Oganisyan was detained during a regularly scheduled ICE check-in at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.
He alleges he received no notice of the government's intent to re-detain him and was not provided a hearing at which the government demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that changed circumstances rendered him a flight risk or danger to the community. Oganisyan filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 30, 2026, asserting four claims: (1) the re-detention policy is arbitrary and capricious under the APA; (2) the policy is contrary to constitutional right under the APA; (3) violation of substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment; and (4) violation of procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. He sought immediate release or, alternatively, a prompt individualized custody hearing. Respondents were ordered to appear by October 4, 2026, and file an answer by October 8, 2026, but failed to appear or respond.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because Respondents failed to appear or file an answer despite a court order to do so, they forfeited any arguments opposing Petitioner's claims. The Court applied the party presentation principle, declining to search for reasons to reject Petitioner's unrefuted claims.
Specifically, Petitioner's procedural due process claim—that his detention without pre-deprivation process violated the Fifth Amendment—was unopposed. Citing precedent from this Circuit and district courts granting habeas relief where the government failed to oppose the petition, the Court held Respondents did not meet their burden under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 to show cause why the writ should not be granted. The Court ordered Oganisyan's immediate release subject to the same conditions in place at the time of his arrest, return of confiscated property, an injunction against re-detention without written notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter, and a status report within two business days confirming compliance.
Key Takeaways
- The Court granted habeas relief based entirely on the government's failure to respond to the petition or appear in the action, treating the procedural due process claim as conceded.
- The ruling emphasizes the party presentation principle: courts are 'essentially passive instruments' and will not construct arguments for a party represented by competent counsel who chooses not to participate.
- The order mandates immediate release under prior conditions, return of property, and a prospective injunction requiring written notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before any future re-detention.
- The decision relies on a line of recent Central and Southern District of California cases granting habeas petitions where the government failed to oppose specific claims or the petition as a whole.
- The Court explicitly declined to rule on the merits of Petitioner's other claims (APA arbitrary and capricious, APA contrary to constitutional right, substantive due process), granting relief solely on the unopposed procedural due process ground.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores the consequences of the government's strategic non-participation in habeas corpus proceedings challenging immigration detention. By failing to file an answer or appear, the government forfeited the opportunity to justify the re-detention of an asylum seeker who had previously been released after a positive credible fear determination.
The ruling reinforces procedural due process protections for noncitizens in the Ninth Circuit, requiring notice and a hearing before re-detention, and demonstrates the district court's willingness to grant immediate release as a remedy for the government's default. The injunction against future re-detention without process provides ongoing protection for the petitioner.