The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of Grigorii Duralev's case against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). This ruling affects noncitizens seeking legal recourse for unlawful arrest and other grievances related to immigration enforcement. The decision underscores the limitations of the FTCA and the challenges faced by individuals navigating the U.S. immigration system.
Duralev, a Russian citizen, had filed a lawsuit claiming damages for his unlawful arrest and detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as for the denial of his employment authorization application. The court's ruling, issued on August 11, 2026, confirms that many of Duralev's claims were barred by the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations, and that his remaining claim lacked a necessary legal basis.
The dispute began when Duralev arrived in the United States in 2015 on a visitor visa and later applied for asylum. In September 2018, he was detained by ICE during what he believed was an asylum interview. He remained in custody for 525 days before being released on bond in February 2020. After his release, he applied for employment authorization, which was denied based on a miscalculation by the government regarding the processing of his asylum application.
Duralev's legal journey began when he filed an administrative claim with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in July 2021, which was a prerequisite for pursuing a lawsuit under the FTCA. He sought damages for various claims, including unlawful arrest, detention, and the denial of his employment authorization. However, the district court dismissed most of his claims as time-barred, concluding that they stemmed from events that occurred before the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations began.
The court ruled that Duralev's claims related to his arrest and detention were time-barred because they occurred in September 2018, well before the two-year period leading up to his administrative claim. The only claim that was timely was a negligence claim related to the denial of his employment authorization. However, the district court found that this claim did not have a private analog in state tort law, which is a requirement under the FTCA.
In its opinion, the court stated, "The panel held that the district court did not err in dismissing as time-barred Duralev’s First through Fifth and Seventh through Ninth causes of action." The ruling emphasized that Duralev failed to demonstrate that any of his claims accrued within the limitations period.
The Ninth Circuit judges, including Richard C. Tallman, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and David F. Hamilton, agreed with the district court's assessment and affirmed the dismissal of Duralev's claims. The judges noted that while Duralev's negligence claim was timely, it lacked a private analog, which is necessary for a claim to proceed under the FTCA.
The implications of this ruling are significant for noncitizens and others seeking to hold the federal government accountable for alleged wrongs. The court's decision reinforces the challenges faced by individuals in navigating the complexities of the FTCA, particularly when it comes to establishing a legal basis for claims against the government.
Going forward, this ruling may deter similar claims under the FTCA, as it highlights the stringent requirements for establishing a valid claim against the federal government. Noncitizens and others who have grievances against government actions may need to consider alternative legal avenues or ensure their claims are clearly within the bounds of the FTCA's requirements.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Duralev plans to appeal the decision or if there are related cases pending. However, the ruling sets a precedent that could influence future cases involving the FTCA and noncitizen rights.