Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Adam Vitaev, a native and citizen of Russia, entered the United States in late 2022 and requested asylum. His immigration parole reportedly expired in December 2023, but he was not taken into ICE custody until May 2025, when he was arrested at LAX while attempting to leave the jurisdiction. An immigration judge denied bond on November 26, 2025, finding that the government had shown his release would pose a danger to the community and a risk of flight, citing an altercation between detainees and law enforcement, limited local ties, and speculative eligibility for relief.
Vitaev filed a first habeas action in the Central District of California on February 10, 2026, seeking immediate release or another bond hearing. By order and judgment entered June 22, 2026, the court dismissed that action with prejudice, holding among other things that the immigration judge had not abused discretion in denying bond. On September 8, 2026, an immigration judge denied Vitaev's asylum application and ordered him removed to Russia; his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals remained pending. He filed this second verified habeas petition on October 5, 2026.
Respondents failed to file any timely answer, and Vitaev filed a notice of their failure to appear and respond on October 14, 2026. The court observed that this failure may not have been accidental, noting that the Chief Magistrate Judge had reported at a September 8, 2026 meeting that the United States Attorney's Office had decided it would file nothing in response to some immigration-related habeas petitions, notwithstanding the court's general order directing respondents to show cause why the writ should not be granted.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that habeas relief may not properly issue as a consequence of a respondent's default, citing Ninth Circuit authority including Gordon v. Duran. A petitioner must affirmatively show that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and the court found Vitaev had failed to carry that burden. The court reasoned that not much had changed since dismissal of the prior action, and the most material change—the denial of his asylum application—was adverse to his challenge to detention, arguably vindicating the immigration judge's earlier perception that his asylum prospects were speculative.
Addressing the four additional months of detention since the prior judgment, the court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) does not confer a right to periodic bond hearings, citing Jennings v. Rodriguez. While prolonged detention may in some circumstances require a second bond hearing as a matter of constitutional due process, the court found no due process violation here. It relied on Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, in which the Ninth Circuit rejected facial and as-applied due process challenges to section 1226(a) detention under the Mathews v. Eldridge framework despite a longer detention than Vitaev's, and concluded the same result was warranted.
The court denied and dismissed the petition with prejudice and directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Key Takeaways
- A respondent's default in an immigration habeas case does not entitle the petitioner to relief; the petitioner still bears the burden of proving custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
- The denial of a detainee's asylum application can undermine a renewed challenge to detention by confirming the immigration judge's earlier assessment that relief prospects were speculative.
- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), detainees have no statutory right to periodic bond hearings, and a second hearing is required only when prolonged detention rises to a due process violation.
- Following Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, the Ninth Circuit's Mathews v. Eldridge analysis has rejected due process challenges to section 1226(a) detention even where more time had passed than in this case.
- The court flagged that the U.S. Attorney's Office had adopted a practice of filing nothing in response to some immigration habeas petitions despite a general order directing respondents to show cause.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates that immigration detainees cannot obtain habeas relief merely because the government fails to respond, even where that nonresponse appears to reflect a deliberate office policy rather than inadvertence. The decision reinforces that the burden remains squarely on the petitioner to establish unlawful custody, and it applies Ninth Circuit precedent to reject a successive petition where intervening events—here, an asylum denial—weakened rather than strengthened the detainee's position.
The ruling also confirms that, absent a due process violation under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing, section 1226(a) detainees in the Ninth Circuit are not entitled to periodic bond redeterminations, even as detention lengthens after an initial denial of bond.