Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ekaterina Gorelova, a Russian citizen, presented herself at a port of entry on February 6, 2024, and was paroled into the United States under a humanitarian parole classification. DHS began removal proceedings and she applied for asylum and related protection. According to her amended petition, she lived in the community, complied with release conditions, and attended every proceeding until ICE arrested her in June 2025 after an immigration court appearance. She has been in custody since.
On December 9, 2025, after a little over six months in detention, an immigration judge held a Rodriguez bond hearing, at which the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that a detainee is a flight risk or danger. The judge denied bond in an order stating only "Flight risk." Gorelova's appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remains pending. On April 13, 2026, a different immigration judge denied asylum and withholding of removal and ordered her removed; that decision is also on appeal.
Gorelova filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on February 1, 2026, and the court denied her request for a temporary restraining order on February 13. With counsel she filed an amended petition on July 23, 2026, alleging denial of due process and detention under the wrong statutory provision. The parties consented to a magistrate judge. Because the amended petition superseded the original, the court addressed only the claims it raised.
The Court’s Holding
The court first held that it had jurisdiction. Although 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) bars review of discretionary bond decisions, it does not bar habeas review of constitutional claims or questions of law, including mixed questions such as whether an immigration judge applied the correct legal standard. The court likewise rejected a conclusory argument based on § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). It also excused exhaustion. Even assuming the prudential factors favored requiring a BIA decision, waiver was appropriate because BIA appeals can take months and continued detention after a deficient hearing would cause irreparable injury.
On the merits, the court reviewed the bond denial for abuse of discretion, asking whether the correct legal standard was applied rather than reweighing evidence. It rejected the government's assertion that the judge found flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, because neither the order nor the brief transcript mentioned the burden of proof or placed it on the government. Neither mentioned the Guerra factors. At most the judge relied on manner of entry, specifically a belief that Gorelova may not have come through the CBP One app and so might be affected by the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule, without explaining how that bore on flight risk. The court found that speculation insufficient and also incorrect: counsel stated without contradiction at the hearing that she had a CBP One appointment and used it, and the later removal order found the same. The court concluded the judge abused his discretion and the hearing was constitutionally deficient.
As relief, the court granted the petition and ordered immediate release under her most recent order of supervision, if any, without new restraints such as reporting requirements, GPS, or electronic monitoring. It enjoined re-detention absent strict compliance with due process and applicable law, and required Respondents to file a declaration by October 21, 2026 confirming release. Because release resolved the case, the court did not reach her other claims, including the wrong-statutory-provision claim. The order does not decide her asylum claim or the pending BIA appeals.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1226(e) does not prevent a district court from reviewing, in habeas, whether an immigration judge's bond denial was legally erroneous or unconstitutional.
- Prudential exhaustion before the BIA may be waived when delay in the appeal would prolong allegedly unlawful detention and cause irreparable injury.
- A bare "flight risk" denial that does not address the burden of proof or the Guerra factors does not show that the correct legal standard was applied.
- Speculation about manner of entry cannot satisfy the clear and convincing standard, particularly when the record contradicts it.
- Release, rather than a new hearing, was the remedy here because the court found no adequate basis for continued detention.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order by a magistrate judge sitting on consent of the parties, so it binds only the parties and is not precedent. Its reasoning relies heavily on other district court decisions applying Ninth Circuit authority such as Martinez v. Clark and Hernandez v. Sessions, and it illustrates how courts in the Central District of California scrutinize Rodriguez hearings for failure to apply the government's burden.
The ruling is fact-specific because the court found the immigration judge's entire explanation rested on a speculative and mistaken premise. How the BIA resolves the pending bond and removal appeals, and whether the government seeks further review, remains open.