Full Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARYA ARTSIUSHENKA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-5671-JES-GC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER LaROSE; PATRICK DIVVER; TODD LYONS; [ECF No. 1] 15 MARKWAYNE MULLIN; ACTING 16 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; U.S. DEPARTMENT 17 OF HOMELAND SECURITY; and U.S. 18 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 19 Respondents. 20 21 Before the Court is Petitioner Darya Artsiushenka’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ 22 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the Court’s Order 23 to Show Cause (ECF No. 2), Respondents filed a return to the petition. ECF No. 4. 24 Petitioner is a native of Belarus who came to the United States on July 14, 2022. 25 ECF No. 1 ¶ 20. She was paroled into the United States at that time on a form of 26 humanitarian parole, noted by her class of admission as “DT.”1 Id. From that date through 27 1 Customs and Borders Protection (“CBP”) uses the code “DT” to indicate that the noncitizen was paroled 28 1 September 15, 2026, she alleges that she remained at liberty within the United States, while 2 she and her husband settled in North Carolina and filed for asylum. Id. ¶ 22. She obtained 3 employment and built her life in her community while pursuing her asylum claim, 4 attending all immigration hearings and ICE check-ins. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. On September 15, 5 2026, Petitioner was detained at her scheduled ICE check-in in North Carolina, and was 6 later transferred to Otay Mesa Detention Center, where she is currently held. Id. ¶¶ 25-27, 7 30. Petitioner alleges that she was never provided with any notice or opportunity to be 8 heard before her detention, and that no changed circumstance exists that would justify 9 revocation of her prior release. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. 10 In their return, Respondents acknowledge that Petitioner had previously been 11 released on humanitarian parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). ECF No. 4 at 2. 12 Respondents further state that they do not oppose the petition and “defer to the Court as to 13 the appropriate relief.” Id. at 3. 14 In light of Respondents’ statements, the Court will decline to engage in a full analysis 15 of the claims as well. Petitioner states that she was previously released by the government 16 in July 2023. Many courts, including this one, have repeatedly held that a prior grant of 17 release, including humanitarian parole, raises a liberty interest for the petitioner and entitles 18 the petitioner to due process rights under procedural due process. See, e.g., Mohammadi v. 19 Larose, No. 3:25-CV-3450-JES-BJW, 2025 WL 3731737, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2025); 20 Isoev v. Larose, No. 26-CV-1361-JES-DDL, 2026 WL 776308 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2026). 21 Accordingly, the Court adopts its prior reasoning and finds that due process requires release 22 of Petitioner here. 23 Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. Respondents are 24 ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to any conditions of 25 her prior release that existed at the time she was re-detained. 26 // 27 https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2024- 28 1 The Parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report by October 14, 2026, 2 || confirming that Petitioner has been released. 3 The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to CLOSE this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: October 8, 2026 7 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28