govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_26-cv-03453-0

- 1 - 
26cv3453 
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 
 
ALVARD NERSISYAN, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
TODD BLANCHE, et al., 
Respondents. 

 
ORDER GRANTING IN PART 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 
CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 
 
Petitioner Alvard Nersisyan filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 
claiming her immigration detention has been arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged and 
that she has failed to receive adequate medical care leading to life-threatening conditions. 
(ECF No. 1.) The Government concedes that, given the Court’s prior rulings, Petitioner’s 
detention has been arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged and that she is entitled to a bond 
hearing where the Government would bear the burden of establishing by clear and 
convincing evidence that Petitioner is either a danger to the community or a risk of flight. 
(ECF No. 4.) The Government does not respond to the allegations of inadequate medical 
care. ( Id.) Petitioner files a Traverse arguing that the Government fails to address the 
primary concern of untreated “serious and worsening medical conditions” which 
Case 3:26-cv-03453-BAS-BJW Document 6 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4
 
- 2 - 
26cv3453 
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 
necessitate immediate release. (ECF No. 5.) For the reasons stated below, the Court 
GRANTS the Petition to the extent Petitioner argues her detention has been arbitrarily and 
unreasonably prolonged but orders a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge as 
requested by the Government. 
I. LEGAL STANDARD 
A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 
States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the writ 
is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 
A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 
custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies 
to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 687 
(2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since she is seeking release from custody, s he 
has standing to pursue this Petition. 
II. BACKGROUND 
Petitioner, a citizen of Armenia , entered the United States seeking asylum on 
December 14, 2024. (ECF No. 1, at ¶ 2.) She submitted an asylum application in May 2025. 
(Id. ¶ 19.) An Immigration Judge denied her asylum application, finding that her claim of 
asylum was credible but that she was barred from seeking asylum under the “Securing the 
Border” proclamation. (Id. ¶ 20.) Petitioner filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration 
Appeals (“BIA”), where it has been pending for the past eight months. (Id.) 
While in immigration custody, Petitioner has suffered from serious ongoing medical 
issues. (Id. ¶ 24.) Most notably, she has a growing mass on her neck. ( Id.) After repeated 
requests over a year, she finally received a CT scan on February 11, 2026. ( Id. ¶ 29.) The 
CT scan revealed a mass in the left cervical node and the left thyroid lobe suggestive of 
lymphoma. (Id. ¶¶ 30–31.) The doctor suggested Petitioner needed a biopsy for definitive 
diagnosis. (Id. ¶ 32.) Although she was transported to receive this biopsy, it was cancelled 
at the last minute for unknown reasons. (Id. ¶ 37.) According to a board -certified 
oncologist, Petitioner’s “delayed diagnosis” “creates a substantial risk of disease 
Case 3:26-cv-03453-BAS-BJW Document 6 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4
 
- 3 - 
26cv3453 
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 
progression, increased morbidity, reduced treatment options, and potentially poorer clinical 
outcomes.” (ECF No. 1, Ex. E.) 
In addition, on February 17, 2026, Petitioner was diagnosed with chronic heart 
failure, with a recommendation for an evaluation by a cardiologist. ( Id. ¶ 32.) Petitioner 
has failed to be treated for her heart failure . According to a board -certified internal 
medicine specialist, her “chronic cardiovascular condition [is] associated with significant 
morbidity and mortality when inadequately evaluated or treated, ” which he concludes is 
the situation while she is in immigration custody. (ECF No. 1, Ex. E.) 
Her situation is co mpounded by the fact that she is unable to communicate with 
anyone effective ly without an Armenian interpreter, which has not been provided. (Id. 
¶ 47.) Additionally, she requires a special diet which is delayed, mishandled , or not 
delivered at all. (Id. ¶ 48.) 
III. ANALYSIS 
 A. Arbitrarily and Unreasonably Prolonged Detention 
 The Court agrees that immigration detention without a bond hearing can be deemed 
arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged and thus a violation of the detainee’s d ue process 
rights. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 256 (9th Cir. 2018) (“ We have grave 
doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without any process is 
constitutional or that those who founded our democracy precisely to protect against the 
government’s arbitrary deprivation of liberty would have thought so.”). The Government 
agrees that 18 months is an arbitrar ily and unreasonably prolonged period of time for 
Petitioner to be detained. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition to the extent it requests 
that a bond hearing be held before an Immigration Judge. 
B. Inadequate Medical Care 
Petitioner argues that, rather than a bond hearing, she should be immediately 
released because she has been provided inadequate medical care. (ECF No. 5.) However, 
even though Petitioner is ultimately seeking release, not just an order for medical treatment, 
the Court still lacks jurisdiction to grant a habeas petition on this ground. See Pinson v. 
Case 3:26-cv-03453-BAS-BJW Document 6 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4
 
- 4 - 
26cv3453 
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 
Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1072 (9th Cir. 2024) (“The question of whether a claim goes to 
the core of habeas does not turn . . . solely on whether the prisoner requested release as 
opposed to some other form of relief.”); Shook v. Apker , 472 F. App’x 702, 703 (9th Cir. 
2012) (memorandum disposition) (“Despite the release he seeks, Shook’s claims concern 
the conditions of his confinement and are properly brought under Bivens.”). 
Based on this precedent, this Court agrees with the rationale outlined by Judge 
Gordon, who recently found that he lacked jurisdiction to grant an immigration detainee’s 
request for release from detention based on inadequate medical care. Moya v. Blanche, No. 
2:26-cv-675-APG-DJA, 2026 WL 1481604, at *8 (D. Nev. May 27, 2026). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 
The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Alvard 
Nersisyan (A#249-118-816) within 14 days of the date of this Order. At that 
bond hearing, the Government shall have the burden of proving by clear and 
convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk 
of flight if released on bond. If no bond hearing is held within 14 days, 
Petitioner is ordered released forthwith. 
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
DATED: June 18, 2026 
 
 
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 
United States District Court 
Case 3:26-cv-03453-BAS-BJW Document 6 Filed 06/18/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight