Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dmitrii Borisenko, a Russian citizen detained at the Adelanto immigration processing center, petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. section 2241. According to uncontested allegations, he entered the United States in December 2022, was released on parole the next day, complied with parole conditions and ICE check-ins, lived with his wife and child, applied for asylum, obtained work authorization, and had no criminal history.
ICE arrested him during a routine check-in on September 21, 2026, without an individualized custody determination. He filed the petition the next day, alleging violations of procedural and substantive due process, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court served a briefing order through the United States Attorney’s Office. It required respondents’ counsel to appear by September 26 and an answer by September 30. No respondent appeared or answered.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym granted the petition and ordered immediate release. The court emphasized that, because respondents supplied no information and disputed none of the petition’s allegations, its factual account came from the petition and was treated as uncontested. The ruling therefore did not follow an evidentiary contest between both sides.
The court considered the nonresponse a concession to the relief requested. It said nonparticipation had become respondents’ standard practice in many similar cases and did not appear to be an oversight. The opinion cited several Central District decisions that likewise granted relief after respondents failed to oppose or appear. It also cited four of the court’s prior decisions finding that similarly situated people were entitled to immediate release because redetention violated Fifth Amendment due process.
The resulting judgment was specific. Respondents had to release Borisenko immediately under the same conditions that applied before his latest detention and return property and documents taken from him. The court enjoined future redetention unless the government first demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that Borisenko is a flight risk or danger to the community. Respondents also had to file a status report by October 14, 2026 confirming his release.
The opinion grounded the grant in the government’s lack of opposition and failure to appear, together with the reasoning of the identified prior cases. Its procedural setting matters: the court accepted the petition’s factual allegations as uncontested rather than resolving disputed evidence about Borisenko’s history, compliance, or risk.
Key Takeaways
- Ignoring a served federal habeas briefing order can lead a court to treat the requested relief as conceded.
- The court relied on uncontested allegations that Borisenko complied with parole, attended check-ins, had family ties, and had no criminal history.
- The order required immediate release on the same conditions that existed before redetention and return of confiscated property.
- Future redetention requires a pre-deprivation hearing and clear and convincing proof of flight risk or danger before a neutral decisionmaker.
- The government faced an October 14, 2026 deadline to report that release had occurred.
Why It Matters
The order provides concrete relief for one detainee and underscores the consequences of government nonappearance in expedited custody litigation. Immigration counsel should document prior release terms, compliance, family and employment ties, criminal history, and the absence of an individualized custody decision when seeking comparable relief.
The decision should not be overstated as a fully adversarial merits ruling applicable to every parolee. Its reasoning expressly depends on uncontested allegations, respondents’ concession by silence, and earlier decisions involving similarly situated individuals. Still, its pre-deprivation-hearing remedy supplies a meaningful procedural safeguard against another arrest without an individualized risk determination.