The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has notified the parties that the case of Fertikh v. Blanche is being considered for oral argument during the Pasadena sitting calendar in September 2026.

Consideration for oral argument is a significant procedural development in a federal appellate case. In many immigration appeals, matters are decided solely on the written briefs. When a case is considered for oral argument, it may indicate that the Court wishes to examine the legal and factual issues in greater depth through direct questioning of counsel.

Our client, Anton Fertikh, is an asylum seeker from Russia and supporter of democratic and anti-corruption movements. Mr. Fertikh continues to pursue legal relief while remaining in immigration detention at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in California. Publicly available records reflect that Mr. Fertikh pursued both immigration relief and federal habeas corpus litigation connected to his detention and asylum proceedings.

According to the public filings, the appeal involves issues related to asylum law, political persecution claims, procedural due process in immigration proceedings, and the ability of asylum seekers to fully present evidence in support of their claims. The appeal also raises questions concerning procedural fairness and the handling of evidence in removal proceedings.

Supporters of Mr. Fertikh believe that procedural obstacles and limitations during the immigration proceedings negatively affected the presentation of his asylum claim. These issues are now before the federal appellate court for review.

Anton Fertikh is represented by attorney Ernest Goodman of the Law Offices of Ernest Goodman. Counsel is prepared to present oral argument before the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena if the Court schedules argument in the case.

Russian America for Democracy in Russia (RADR) submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the case. Participation by amici in federal appellate litigation may assist the Court by providing additional legal analysis, public-interest perspectives, and contextual information concerning political conditions and human rights issues.

The Ninth Circuit has not issued a decision on the merits of the appeal. The case remains pending.