logo
After 3 months in ICE detention, Kseniia Petrova case heads to court. Here's what to know

After 3 months in ICE detention, Kseniia Petrova case heads to court. Here's what to know

USA Today13-05-2025

After 3 months in ICE detention, Kseniia Petrova case heads to court. Here's what to know A judge will hear the case of Harvard genetics researcher Kseniia Petrova, who has been in ICE custody since February.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Newark Mayor Ras Baraka arrested outside ICE detention facility
Newark, NJ mayor and Democratic candidate for governor, Ras Baraka, was reportedly arrested outside of a recently opened immigrant detention center.
A lawsuit that could test the limits of the Trump administration's power to detain visa holders, including students and scholars, is poised to go before a federal judge.
U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss will hear arguments May 14 in the case of a Harvard scientist from Russia who alleges the Trump administration wrongfully detained her.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection canceled Kseniia Petrova's visa in February after she failed to declare scientific samples when she returned to Boston from France, and officers turned her over to ICE. Her attorney argues that CBP's actions were "arbitrary and capricious" and her detention illegal.
The Trump administration says it acted within its authority. Petrova "was lawfully detained after lying to federal officers about carrying substances into the country," Homeland Security said in a statement.
Here's what to know about Petrova's case.
More: She's in ICE detention. From 1,500 miles away, his piano lulls her to sleep.
Who is Kseniia Petrova?
Petrova, 30, is a top-tier geneticist who worked for a Harvard Medical School lab on a J-1 work-study visa, where she conducted anti-aging and cancer research.
Before coming to Harvard, she was working on her native country's Genome Russia project, mapping the genetic variation of humankind, when she ran afoul of Vladimir Putin's government for protesting Russia's war on Ukraine.
She fled, and soon found her way to Harvard and another of the world's important genetics labs. Leon Peshkin, Petrova's supervisor, runs the lab that is working on one of the hottest fields in science: anti-aging research.
"I was struggling to find an applied mathematician and who understands biology," Peshkin told USA TODAY – until he found Petrova. "She was a perfect match."
What was Kseniia Petrova carrying into the country?
Peshkin asked Petrova to pick up samples of frog embryos from the Institut Curie in Paris to bring back to the lab. Previous shipments to the lab had been lost or damaged in transit, so Peshkin thought it would be more efficient if they were hand-carried.
Petrova has said she didn't believe she needed to declare the samples because they were not living; they were embedded in paraffin, chemically fixed, dehydrated and are "entirely harmless," according to her complaint in federal district court.
In a statement, the government said a K9 inspection of Petrova's luggage "uncovered undeclared petri dishes, containers of unknown substances, and loose vials of embryonic frog cells, all without proper permits."
CBP has a webpage outlining its rules for importing biological materials into the United States.
The embryos were "incapable of growing or transmitting disease," Martin Chalfie, chair of the National Academies Committee on Human Rights, which defends scientists detained in connection with their scientific work, said in an amicus brief filed in federal court.
"Similar material can be found in high school and college biology laboratories throughout the United States," said Chalfie, a Nobel laureate in chemistry.
Why was Kseniia Petrova detained?
A U.S. customs officer initially stamped Petrova's passport, affirming her J-1 scholar visa when she landed at Boston's Logan International Airport in February. But at baggage claim, officers flagged her luggage for undeclared items.
Typically, CBP seizes items when they aren't properly declared and may issue a fine. In Petrova's case, a customs officer revoked her visa and asked if she wanted to withdraw her application for admission to the United States and return on the next plane to France, according to the complaint.
She indicated she would be willing to do so.
"At that point," according to the complaint, "the CBP officer asked Petrova: 'Would you like the U.S. government to contact the Russian government to let them know you are here?' followed by, 'Do you have fear or are afraid to return to your home country?'"
Petrova said she did fear returning to Russia due to political persecution, according to the complaint.
That fear claim triggered an asylum process, according to the complaint; CBP no longer allowed her to return to France, and instead began processing her for expedited removal by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
ICE sent Petrova to a processing center in Vermont, then to the Richwood Correctional Center in Monroe, Louisiana, where she has been detained for three months. She faces no civil or criminal charges.
Petrova's lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Vermont where Reiss presides as chief judge.
Who supports Kseniia Petrova?
Seventeen U.S. senators sent Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem a letter in March urging ICE to release Petrova while her asylum case is pending.
"Absent evidence that Petrova is a flight risk or a danger to the community, we strongly urge you to reconsider ICE's recent decision not to grant Petrova parole and exercise discretion within your authority to release her from detention while her asylum case is pending," they said in the March 31 letter.
"Moreover, we are deeply concerned about the possibility that Petrova could face persecution if deported to Russia," the senators said.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell on May 12 filed an affidavit supporting Petrova, saying the administration's high-profile detention of international students threatens the state's economy and the country's global leadership in scientific innovation.
"The Trump administration's actions targeting international students and academics sends a chilling message to talented students and academics around the world," Campell wrote, "that they risk detention, deportation and an end to their academic career in the United States at the whims of the federal government."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

L.A. immigration protests latest: California sues Trump admin. over National Guard deployment, president says he would support arresting Newsom
L.A. immigration protests latest: California sues Trump admin. over National Guard deployment, president says he would support arresting Newsom

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

L.A. immigration protests latest: California sues Trump admin. over National Guard deployment, president says he would support arresting Newsom

California is suing the Trump administration over its National Guard deployment in Los Angeles without the consent of the state's governor amid immigration protests that escalated over the weekend, leading to dozens of arrests. The Los Angeles Police Department has since declared all of downtown L.A. an unlawful assembly area. The lawsuit was filed Monday by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and accuses President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of "unlawfully" federalizing the state's National Guard, and infringing on California Gov. Gavin Newsom's authority as commander-in-chief of the state's military reserve force. "Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach," Bonta said. "It is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. We will not let this stand.' Bonta also alleged in a televised statement Monday that protests escalated after National Guard troops arrived on Sunday. 'We'll never know what might have been had the president left our state and local authorities to continue the important work they were already doing and were more than capable of doing,' Bonta said. Before the lawsuit was announced, Trump on Monday said he would support his border czar arresting Newsom over possible obstructions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions in the state amid protests. At least 44 people were arrested by federal ICE agents during a raid at several locations around Los Angeles on Friday, including Ambiance Apparel in the garment district and a Home Depot in the Westlake District. These areas are known to have significant migrant populations and labor-focused industries. Protests then erupted in Los Angeles in response to Trump's immigration crackdown that has seen federal agents arrest a student on his way to volleyball practice and erroneously deport a man to El Salvador. Sunday marked the third straight day of protests over the wave of immigration raids. Crowds gathered in downtown Los Angeles and Boyle Heights. Protesters marched from Boyle Heights to the Metropolitan Detention Center, a federal building in downtown L.A. This led to the LAPD declaring the area an unlawful assembly. Protesters moved from outside the federal building and walked onto the 101 Freeway around 3:30 p.m. local time. Police fired tear gas and other projectiles into the crowd and cleared the area by 5 p.m. Meanwhile, another protest started on Sunday outside of Los Angeles City Hall Protesters outside the city's prison in the Alameda neighborhood of L.A. were arrested, according to the LAPD. Around 300 National Guard troops arrived in Los Angeles County on Sunday after Trump deployed them to protect federal property and personnel, without the consent of Newsom, a Democrat with whom he often spars. As governor, Newsom would normally retain control and command over the California National Guard. The White House said the deployment was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in the state, and initially stated that 2,000 troops were being deployed. About 500 Marines are also prepared to deploy to the area, the Northern Command said. It's the first time in nearly 60 years that a president has called in the National Guard without a state's request or consent. The last time was when President Lyndon Johnson sent the Guard to protect a 1965 civil rights march in Alabama. Newsom said California is suing the Trump administration over the federal mobilization of the National Guard. Newsom told MSNBC that Trump's federal mobilization of the National Guard was 'an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.' The governor also alleged that Trump is the one to blame for the escalation in California, saying, 'He's exacerbated the conditions. He's lit the proverbial match. He's putting fuel on this fire.' Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, told NBC News that anyone who obstructs immigration enforcement would be arrested. When asked if that would include Newsom or Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, he replied, 'I'll say it about anybody. … You cross that line, it's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement doing their job.' Newsom responded to Homan's NBC interview on Sunday by saying: 'He knows where to find me.' Homan later clarified those remarks in an interview with Fox News. 'The reporter asked me, well, could Governor Newsom or Mayor Bass be arrested? I said, 'Well no one's above the law — if they cross the line and commit a crime, absolutely they can.'' He added: 'There was no discussion about arresting Newsom.' Meanwhile, Trump said he would support the arrest of Newsom. "I would do it if I were Tom. I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity but I think it would be a great thing," Trump said Monday. In response, Newsom said: "This is a day I hoped I would never see in America." "I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism," he wrote on X. The peaceful protests escalated into vandalism, autonomous cars set ablaze, fireworks and other objects thrown at law enforcement, police firing rubber bullets (including at an Australian journalist), and dozens of arrests by the LAPD. 'In recent days, many protests across the city have been peaceful and we thank the community for expressing their views and their frustration in a responsible manner,' LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said in a Sunday news conference. 'However, when peaceful demonstrations devolve into acts of vandalism or violence, especially violence directed at innocent people, law enforcement officers and others, we must respond firmly.' McDonnell said that a total of 39 people had been arrested — 29 on Saturday and 10 on Sunday. He also said the LAPD was not given advance notice that federal operations would occur in the area. On Sunday, several Waymo driverless vehicles were vandalized and set on fire in downtown Los Angeles. A Waymo spokesperson told USA Today Monday morning that its autonomous vehicles have been removed from the area and the company has temporarily suspended its ride-hailing service 'out of an abundance of caution.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told CNN on Monday that the situation has since calmed in the city. 'If you dial back time and go to Friday, if immigration raids had not happened here, we would not have had the disorder that went on last night,' Bass said. 'We do not know where and when the next raids will be. That is the concern because people in this city have a rapid response network.' 'If they see ICE, they go out and they protest, and so it's just a recipe for pandemonium that is completely unnecessary,' she added.

Behind the scenes of Trump's ‘iconic' McDonald's visit before election victory: ‘That was epic'
Behind the scenes of Trump's ‘iconic' McDonald's visit before election victory: ‘That was epic'

New York Post

time30 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Behind the scenes of Trump's ‘iconic' McDonald's visit before election victory: ‘That was epic'

Fox Nation is offering a rare glimpse into Donald Trump's pivotal McDonald's visit during the final weeks of his 2024 campaign with a multi-episode installment of 'The Art of the Surge.' It all starts at a McDonald's drive-thru, where the then-GOP nominee traded a suit for an apron and got to work as a fry cook in Feasterville, Pennsylvania last October. Advertisement 'I've always wanted to work at McDonald's, and I never did,' he told workers inside the building. The first episode of the series documents Trump's 'first day' on the job from the very beginning, as he requested to work the french fry cooker and learned the process. He walked through, step-by-step, dunking fries into hot oil, shaking the basket, pouring servings into the signature red McDonald's cartons and sprinkling salt over them. It became an iconic moment on the campaign trail as the notorious New York City business magnate-turned-president performed a job many Americans have had at one point in their lives. Advertisement He even greeted customers wrapped around the building at the drive-thru window. As one family took a Happy Meal from his hands he quipped with a smile, 'It's going to be the best you've ever had. It had better be. I made it myself.' 3 President Trump waving to customers from a McDonald's drive-thru window during a campaign stop in Feasterville-Trevose, Pa. on October 20, 2024. Getty Images Customers passed on their messages of encouragement as the high-stakes faceoff with then-vice president and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris was merely two weeks away, with both teams in a mad sprint to the finish line. Advertisement 'Make America great again!' one driver said. Another, shaking hands with Trump, said, '45-47, you've got this, sir.' 3 Trump filling and order of french fries at the Pennsylvania McDonald's. Photo by Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images Trump paused, on occasion, to wave at the mass of fans cheering and holding 'Trump-Vance' signs nearby. He told WTXF reporter JoAnn Pileggi that the crowd was smiling and upbeat because they wanted hope. Advertisement Turning back inside the building, he faced the camera at one point and smiled as he noted how much fun he was having. 'I could do this all day. I wouldn't mind this job,' he said. 3 Trump serving a customer an order at the drive-thru window. Photo byTrump's efforts were viewed by many as a mockery of a claim his opponent had worked for the fast food chain while in college. At one point, Trump even remarked, 'I've now worked for 15 minutes. Fifteen more than Kamala.' As his team departed on his personal plane, Trump's deputy director of communications Margo Martin enthused about the day. 'That was epic,' she said. Advertisement 'Donald Trump working the McDonald's drive-thru – iconic.' Trump would go on to defeat Harris in the 2024 election, sweeping all campaign swing states, including Pennsylvania.

Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law
Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law

Los Angeles Times

time30 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Federalizing the state National Guard is a chilling push past the law

The use of the military to quell protests is something associated with dictators in foreign countries, and as of Saturday night, with a president of the United States. When President Trump federalized 2,000 members of the California National Guard, deploying them because of protests against federal immigration authorities, he sent a chilling signal about his willingness to use the military against demonstrators. There are two relevant aspects of federal law: One allows the president to federalize a state's National Guard and the other permits the president to use the military in domestic situations. Neither, at this point, provides legal authority for Saturday's action. As for the former, a federal statute, 10 U.S.C. section 12406, authorizes the president to take over a state's National Guard if 'the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation; there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' This is the statutory provision Trump has invoked. But it is highly questionable that the protests against ICE agents rise to the level of a 'rebellion against the authority of the Government.' This statute does not give the president the authority to use the troops. Another law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally prohibits the military from being used within the United States. The 2,000 National Guard troops are only deployed to protect ICE officers. However, even this is legally questionable unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807, which creates a basis for using the military in domestic situations and an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. On Sunday, Trump said he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act allows a president to deploy troops domestically in three situations. One is if a governor or state legislature asks for the deployment to put down an insurrection. The last time this occurred was in 1992, when California Gov. Pete Wilson asked President George H.W. Bush to use the National Guard to stop the riots that occurred after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. With Gov. Gavin Newsom opposing the federalizing of the National Guard, this isn't the case in Los Angeles today. A second part of the Insurrection Act allows deployment in order to 'enforce the laws' of the United States or to 'suppress rebellion' whenever 'unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion' make it 'impracticable' to enforce federal law by the 'ordinary course of judicial proceedings.' Since no one disputes the courts are fully functioning, this provision has no relevance. It is the third part of the Insurrection Act that is more likely to be cited by the Trump administration. It allows the president to use military troops in a state to suppress 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' that 'so hinders the execution of the laws' that any portion of the state's inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. President Eisenhower used this power to send federal troops to help desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., public schools when the governor defied federal court orders. This section of the law has additional language: The president may deploy troops in a state that 'opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.' This broad language is what I would expect Trump to invoke to use the troops directly against the anti-ICE protests. The Insurrection Act does not define crucial terms such as 'insurrection,' 'rebellion' or 'domestic violence.' In 1827, in Martin vs. Mott, the Supreme Court said that 'the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and ... his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.' There have been many calls over the years to modify the expansive language of the Insurrection Act. But since presidents have rarely used it, and not in a very long time, reform efforts seemed unnecessary. The broad presidential authority under the Insurrection Act thus has remained on the books as a loaded weapon. There is a strong set of norms that has restrained presidents from using federal troops in domestic situations, especially absent a request from a state governor. But Trump shows no respect for norms. Any use of the military in domestic situations should be regarded as a last resort in the United States. The readiness of the administration to quickly invoke any aspect of this authority is frightening, a message about the willingness of a remade federal government to quell demonstrations. The protests in Los Angeles do not rise to the conditions that warrant the federalization of the National Guard. This is not to deny that some of the anti-ICE protests have turned violent. However, they have been limited in size and there is no reason to believe that law enforcement could not control them absent military force. But the statutes Trump can invoke give presidents broad powers. In the context of everything that we have seen from the Trump administration, nationalizing the California National Guard should make us even more afraid. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store