Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Henrikh Vardanyan, an Armenian national, arrived in the United States in December 2024 and was initially released on temporary humanitarian parole with conditions to report for ICE check-ins. When he appeared for a scheduled June 2025 check-in, ICE arrested and detained him; the Department of Homeland Security then reissued an amended Notice to Appear reclassifying him as an “arriving alien without parole.” In October 2025, an immigration judge denied his request for redetermination, concluding it lacked jurisdiction. Vardanyan remained detained at Adelanto Detention Facility and filed a § 2241 petition seeking immediate release or a bond hearing.
The government’s answer relied on Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66, contending that immigration judges lack jurisdiction to conduct bond hearings for arriving aliens, who are subject to mandatory detention. An overwhelming majority of recent Central District decisions (Padilla v. Bowen; Mosqueda v. Noem; Helal v. Janecka) have rejected this position and ordered bond hearings on an expedited basis.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Steve Kim issued an Order to Show Cause why Vardanyan should not receive an immediate individualized bond hearing under the same reasoning as the prior C.D. Cal. orders. The court found Vardanyan similarly situated to other Adelanto detainees who had already been ordered released on bond, and noted the government had advanced no new arguments distinguishing those cases.
The OSC required the respondents to respond by 4:00 PM on January 9, 2026. Respondents could discharge the order with written verification that the petitioner had received (or was scheduled to receive) a bond hearing on a date certain. Pending final resolution, the court enjoined respondents from transferring Vardanyan out of the district. If a bond hearing or release mooted the case, petitioner’s counsel would file a Rule 41(a) notice; otherwise, respondents had to file by January 16 either a supplemental answer or a stipulation and consent judgment enjoining re-detention without pre-deprivation procedures (preserving the government’s legal arguments for appeal).
Key Takeaways
- The Central District has now developed a stable consensus rejecting the government’s position that “arriving aliens” are subject to mandatory detention with no possibility of bond.
- Petitioners detained at Adelanto on similar facts can expect courts to order — or strongly direct toward — an individualized bond hearing on an expedited basis.
- To overcome the prevailing view, the government must offer new arguments not already addressed in prior cases; reciting Matter of Q. Li is insufficient.
- Courts will commonly enjoin transfer of the petitioner out of the district while the habeas case is pending, to preserve jurisdiction.
- A common resolution is a stipulation and consent judgment that orders bond hearings going forward while preserving the government’s legal arguments for appeal.
Why It Matters
This OSC pattern is now a routine part of immigration habeas litigation in the Central District. The opinion confirms how settled the consensus has become — “treating like cases alike” even when the petitioner has not specifically raised the prevailing arguments. For immigration counsel, the practical takeaway is clear: petitioners detained at Adelanto on arriving-alien designations should file § 2241 petitions promptly and ask the court to follow Padilla, Mosqueda, and Helal.
For the government, this opinion documents the magnitude of its losing streak in this district on the bond-hearing-for-arriving-aliens issue, and signals that without new arguments, courts will continue to order bond hearings.