Federal judges order DHS responses after ICE detains Ukrainian parolees
Two federal judges in western New York ordered the government to justify detaining Ukrainian nationals who entered under humanitarian parole.
Federal immigration authorities arrested three Ukrainian nationals who entered the United States under the Uniting for Ukraine humanitarian parole program, prompting habeas corpus challenges in federal court over the legal basis for holding parolees who have no criminal records.12
Two of the men remain detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York, where federal judges have directed government attorneys to show cause for their custody and address binding regional precedent.12 A third man secured release on a $25,000 bond after an initial transfer to an out-of-state facility in Louisiana, but he remains under electronic ankle monitoring and supervision in Pennsylvania.1
The legal challenges, filed by New York immigration attorney Elena Dvoinik, dispute the government's authority to detain parolees whose permissions have not been revoked or whose renewals remain pending.13 The litigation centers on the intersection of humanitarian parole and statutory custody provisions, raising questions about whether Department of Homeland Security officers can subject arriving parolees to mandatory detention without demonstrating flight risk or danger to the community.41
Arrests at western New York gas stations
Two of the detentions occurred in the Buffalo area weeks apart under similar circumstances.1 Vitaliy Stavnisty, a 59-year-old retired Ukrainian police officer and transportation business owner from Zaporizhzhia, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on October 18, 2026, at a gas station near Buffalo.1
Stavnisty arrived in the United States through the federal Uniting for Ukraine initiative, known as U4U, which was created following the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.1 Government documentation established that his humanitarian parole status remains valid through May 2028.12 Before fleeing to the United States, Stavnisty had deployed his private company buses and personal financial resources to evacuate civilians from Mariupol and other contested areas, assisting with the transport of more than 60 tons of humanitarian relief supplies.12
Despite his active parole grant and an absence of any criminal record, Stavnisty was taken into administrative custody and transferred to the federal detention facility in Batavia.1 In court filings, Dvoinik stated that immigration officials have failed to provide an adequate legal explanation for why an individual with unexpired parole was arrested and held.12
A month earlier, on September 28, 2026, immigration officers arrested Roman Serdiuk at a gas station in the same region.12 Serdiuk, a professional mariner from Mariupol who holds an undergraduate degree in maritime navigation, had worked commercial shipping rotations since 2015.12 He departed Ukraine in August 2021 on a contract with the international shipping company MANX.12 Russian forces captured Mariupol in May 2022 after months of heavy bombardment, destroying much of the city and leaving it under military occupation.12 Family members advised Serdiuk against returning, and he subsequently entered the United States lawfully under the humanitarian parole program.12
Serdiuk applied for an extension of his parole before his initial term expired, and that application remains pending before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.12 Following his arrest, an immigration judge denied Serdiuk's application for bond, concluding that the administrative court lacked jurisdiction to evaluate his custody.12
Federal court intervention in Batavia
Both men filed federal habeas corpus petitions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, arguing that their ongoing confinement violates statutory limits and procedural due process.12 The cases landed before separate federal judges who quickly established expedited briefing schedules.
In Stavnisty v. Ball, U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. issued an order on October 30, 2026, instructing the federal government to respond to the petition by November 13, 2026.12 Judge Sinatra directed government counsel to explicitly address Second Circuit precedent regarding the detention framework that governs noncitizens who have entered the country on parole.12
In Serdiuk v. Ball, U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo intervened on November 5, 2026, by issuing an order that blocked immigration authorities from transferring Serdiuk out of the Western District of New York while the habeas petition remains under review.12 Judge Vilardo directed the government to show cause by November 12, 2026, explaining why the petition should not be granted and why Serdiuk should not be released from the Batavia facility.12
In challenging the administrative denial of bond for Serdiuk, Dvoinik cited the Second Circuit's 2026 decision in Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, which examined the statutory boundaries of immigration detention under Sections 1225 and 1226 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.14 The petition contends that the immigration court maintained jurisdiction to consider bond and that prolonged administrative detention of a vetted humanitarian parolee without individualized review exceeds lawful authority.14
Medical concerns have also surfaced inside the Batavia facility.12 Stavnisty had undergone spinal surgery prior to his arrest and had a second surgical procedure scheduled in civilian healthcare facilities.12 After receiving reports that Stavnisty's physical condition deteriorated in custody, his counsel submitted an urgent request for an independent medical evaluation.12
Out-of-state transfer and conditional release
The third case involves Igor L., an international tanker truck driver who also participated in civilian evacuation efforts in Ukraine before entering the United States through humanitarian parole.12 Unlike Stavnisty and Serdiuk, Igor secured an immigration bond hearing where an immigration judge authorized release on a $25,000 bond alongside electronic ankle monitoring on October 19, 2026.12
Immediately following that hearing, immigration authorities moved him from western New York to the Jackson Parish detention facility in Louisiana.12 Inter-facility transfers across state lines are common in immigration enforcement, often complicating communication between detainees, their families, and local counsel.43 Igor was released from the Louisiana facility after his family posted the $25,000 bond.12
Igor now resides in Pennsylvania while continuing to comply with mandatory reporting schedules and wearing an electronic ankle monitor.12 His representatives submitted a formal complaint to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General after his mobile phones, identification documents, and personal jewelry were lost during his transfer between detention centers.12 Following his discharge from custody, Igor experienced a fever approaching 104 degrees while adjusting to electronic supervision.12
Federal litigation over the detentions remains active, with no final merits rulings issued by the federal courts in western New York.12 In statements regarding the filings, Dvoinik emphasized that although each client arrived from a distinct industry and background, all three entered through identical legal processes established for wartime humanitarian relief, and their continued restraint tests the procedural limits of federal immigration enforcement.1
The record
43 sentences trace to 4 sources.
-
1
ED
Elena Dvoinik, Attorney at Law
Press release
· einpresswire.com · 8 Nov 2026
New York Attorney Challenges ICE Detention of Three Ukrainian Humanitarian Parolees
See the source
- 2 New York Attorney Challenges ICE Detention of Three Ukrainian Humanitarian Parolees See the source
- 3 Elena Dvoinik | New York Immigration & Litigation Attorney See the source
- 4 ICE Detention Lawyer | Bond Hearings | National Immigration Practice — Elena Dvoinik | New York Immigration & Litigation Attorney See the source