{"id":444,"date":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=444"},"modified":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-12T12:00:00","slug":"kisel-noem-cd-cal-osc-zadvydas-belarus-detainee-indefinite-detention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=444","title":{"rendered":"Kisel v. Noem \u2014 C.D. Cal. Orders ICE to Show Cause on Belarus Detainee’s Indefinite Detention Beyond Zadvydas Six-Month Presumption"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Kisel v. Noem<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-12<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-03260<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2241 habeas; 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1231(a) post-removal-period detention; Zadvydas v. Davis presumption; Belarus citizenship; foreseeable removal<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Andrey Kisel, a noncitizen detained by ICE at Adelanto Detention Facility, filed a \u00a7 2241 habeas petition in December 2025 challenging his indefinite detention as a violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The Court initially denied his motion for a preliminary injunction. After his renewed motion was filed in January 2026 and respondents opposed, the court considered whether his continued detention was constitutional under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).<\/p>\n

Under 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1231(a), a noncitizen who has been ordered removed must be detained during the 90-day removal period. After that, the government may continue detention or release the person under supervision. Zadvydas held that detention beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month period requires the government to demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Kisel had been detained for nine months \u2014 past the six-month presumption.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Kenly Kiya Kato issued an Order to Show Cause why the court should not grant Kisel’s motion for preliminary injunction. The court explained that as a noncitizen detained beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month period, Kisel’s detention “grows more presumptively unreasonable every day he remains in custody” (citing Vaskanyan v. Janecka). While respondents asserted ICE intended to remove Kisel to Belarus, they did not dispute his contention that he could not be removed there because Belarus does not recognize him as a citizen.<\/p>\n

Respondents’ representation that “the government is actively seeking a travel document for the Petitioner” was insufficient under Zadvydas. Mere requests for travel documents do not demonstrate a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future (Nguyen v. Scott). The court ordered respondents to address whether Belarus had previously refused to issue travel documents and, if so, what specific changed circumstances now made removal likely. Petitioner could file a reply within 10 days.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n