Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01939/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01939-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

18cv1939-CAB-RBB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGEY A. STEPANYUK,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III,

Respondents.

Case No.: 18cv1939-CAB-RBB

ORDER STAYING PETITION 

UNTIL DECEMBER 14, 2018 

PENDING REMOVAL 

DEVELOPMENTS

Petitioner Sergey A. Stepanyuk (“Petitioner”) is a detainee in the custody of the 

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). On August 20, 2018, 

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. [Doc. 

No. 1.] Petitioner contends that he is being indefinitely detained in violation of Zadvydas 

v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). On September 21, 2018, Respondents filed a return to the 

petition. [Doc. No. 3.] Petitioner has not filed a reply.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Ukraine. [Doc. 1, para. 1.] On August 11, 1999, 

he was admitted to the United States as a refugee. [Id., para. 11.] On March 28, 2012, he 

was convicted of second degree robbery and sentenced to five years in prison. [Id. at 20, 

23.]

Case 3:18-cv-01939-CAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18cv1939-CAB-RBB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On November 27, 2017, ICE took him into custody, and he was placed in removal 

proceedings. [Id. at 20, para. 12.] 

On January 22, 2018, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner removed 

from the United States to Ukraine, and he did not appeal from the decision, so it became 

final and executable. [Id. at 20, paras. 9, 12.] 

ICE then began the process of obtaining a travel document from Ukraine to 

repatriate Petitioner, because his Ukrainian passport had expired. [Id. at 12.] In April and 

August 2018, ICE conducted custody reviews, and decided to continue Petitioner’s 

detention pending efforts to repatriate him to Ukraine. [Id. at 20, 23.]

Petitioner commenced this action on August 20, 2018. 

On September 8, 2018, ICE Headquarters notified Respondents that a Ukrainian 

consular officer had promised, on September 7, 2018, to issue a travel document for 

Petitioner’s repatriation to Ukraine and that the document would be sent to the San Diego 

ICE office. [Doc. No. 3 at 2.]

On September 11, 2018, the ICE Detention Officer assigned to Petitioner’s case 

notified counsel for Respondents that he had received the travel document from the 

Ukrainian Consulate and that Petitioner’s repatriation to Ukraine was being scheduled. 

Id. On that same day, ICE served Petitioner with an “Imminent Removal Letter,” 

notifying him that he will be repatriated to Ukraine in October 2018. Id.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard.

A district court may issue habeas corpus relief where a petitioner demonstrates that 

he or she is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 

States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Section 2241 confers jurisdiction upon federal courts to 

consider challenges to the detention of aliens in removal proceedings. See Demore v. 

Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517–18 (2003); Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 637. Although the READ ID 

Act of 2005, Pub.L.No. 109–13, Div. B., 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005) eliminated district 

court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions challenging final orders of removal, 

Case 3:18-cv-01939-CAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18cv1939-CAB-RBB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

district courts retain jurisdiction over section 2241 petitions challenging the legality of an 

alien's detention. See Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075–76 (9th Cir. 2006).

“When a final order of removal has been entered against an alien, the Government 

must facilitate that alien's removal within a 90–day ‘removal period.’ ” Thai v. Ashcroft, 

366 F.3d 790, 793 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). The 

removal period begins on the latest of the following:

(i) The date the order of removal becomes administratively final;

(ii) If the removal order is judicially reviewed and if the court orders a stay 

of the removal of the alien, the date of the court's final order.

(iii) If the alien is detained or confined (except under an immigration 

process), the date the alien is released from detention or confinement.

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B); see also Khotesouvan v. Morones, 386 F.3d 1298, 1300 n.3 

(9th Cir. 2004). During the 90–day removal period, continued detention is required until 

the alien is actually removed. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). Where removal cannot be 

accomplished within the 90–day removal period, continued detention is authorized by 8 

U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).

In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) did not authorize 

the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) to detain an alien awaiting removal 

“indefinitely” beyond the statutory 90–day removal period. 533 U.S. at 689. Rather, the 

Supreme Court construed the statute to contain an implicit “reasonable time” limitation. 

Id. at 682. The Court held that “the statute, read in light of the Constitution's demands, 

limits an alien's post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring 

about that alien's removal from the United States.” Id. at 682, 689. The Court determined 

that six months was a presumptively reasonable period of detention. Id. at 701. “After 

this 6-month period, once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no 

significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government 

must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. If the Government fails 

to rebut the alien's showing, then the alien is entitled to relief. See e.g., Chun Yat Ma v. 

Case 3:18-cv-01939-CAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18cv1939-CAB-RBB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Asher, 2012 WL 1432229, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2012) (granting habeas relief and 

ordering petitioner released from custody after eleven month delay in removing petitioner 

to China). “For detention to remain reasonable, as the period or prior postremoval 

confinement grows, what counts as the ‘reasonably foreseeable future’ conversely would 

have to shrink.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.

B. Analysis.

Petitioner’s removal order became final on January 22, 2018. ICE then began the 

process of obtaining a travel document from Ukraine to repatriate Petitioner because his 

Ukrainian passport expired. On September 11, 2018, ICE obtained the travel document 

from the Ukrainian Consulate and Petitioner’s repatriation to the Ukraine is scheduled to 

occur this month. While Petitioner has been held approximately three months beyond the 

presumptively reasonable period established in Zadvydas, it is too early to conclude that 

removal efforts will not be successful within the next few months. Therefore habeas 

relief is not warranted at this time. See Zhao v. Kelly, No. CV 17-777-BRO(KES), 2017 

WL 1591818, at *4 (April 27, 2017)(habeas relief not warranted where application for 

travel documents from Chinese consulate was pending and petitioner had been detained 

for nine months).

Nevertheless, the delay in obtaining travel documents is concerning. Therefore, 

the Court finds that the most appropriate course of action is to stay this case until 

December 14, 2018.1

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) this action is STAYED until December 14, 2018;

 

1 A trial court has the inherent authority to stay a habeas proceeding as long as the stay is not indefinite. 

Zhao, 2017 WL 1591818, at *4 (citations omitted)(three month stay of habeas case warranted where 

there was a delay in obtaining travel documents from Chinese consulate).

Case 3:18-cv-01939-CAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18cv1939-CAB-RBB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(2) Respondent shall file a status report every 30 days (on November 9, 2018 and 

December 10, 2018) detailing the status of efforts to repatriate Stepanyuk to the Ukraine.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01939-CAB-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5