Avodah Zarah 75b
Mishnah Berurah 323:35
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 120:16
Taz 18

I know that. I asked you why not, and you’re sending me sources that say yes. If you have a question, please spell it out.

And it would also be worthwhile to cite the sources correctly.

At first glance, this situation is the exact opposite of the Talmudic passage in Avodah Zarah. In the case under discussion, the Jew is not interested in acquiring the utensils, whereas in Avodah Zarah the Jew is interested in acquiring the collateral. Likewise, in the Talmudic passage the non-Jew wants to leave the utensils in the Jew’s possession, whereas in the case under discussion the non-Jew does not care at all—if he wants, he can take them home; if not, they will simply remain in the Jew’s home.
The reasoning of “having become established in the possession of a Jew” would seemingly apply only to collateral?
Sorry for the confusion in the sources; it never crossed my mind that the Rabbi might not know them. It’s the eve of Passover, the kids are screaming and the dog is barking…

The Talmud and the halakhic decisors explicitly wrote that if he intended for them to remain with him permanently, they require immersion. That is, the simple assumption is that utensils that have become established in a Jew’s possession require immersion.
I don’t know what “the case under discussion” is. The reasoning does not apply only to collateral; on the contrary: with collateral, perhaps immersion is required even without his intending for it to remain with him permanently, because a creditor acquires collateral according to Rabbi Yitzhak. But wherever they become established in his possession, immersion is certainly required.

How can one know whether he intended for them to remain with him permanently? The Jew wants to exempt himself from the obligation, so he certainly does not intend for them to remain with him permanently, nor to acquire them through any form of acquisition.

Tell me what scenario you’re talking about. What is the question? What is the case? I don’t have time for riddles.

Chaim bought a new set of utensils with a total weight of about 50 kg. The utensil mikveh is 750 meters from his home, and Chaim has neither the strength nor the time to carry the utensils to the mikveh.
Chaim decided to exempt himself from the obligation by giving the utensils as a gift to his Ishmaelite friend, Ahmad Hoja, and asking him to lend him the utensils for his use until he asks for them back; and if he never asks for them back, then once they break he will throw them into the trash.
Did he act properly?

Those are borrowed utensils, and that has nothing to do with the topic of utensils having become established in a Jew’s possession. Borrowed utensils are not obligated in immersion.