Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Wenznaly Laporte, a Haitian national, arrived in the United States on December 27, 2023, through a scheduled CBP One appointment. At that time, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear charging him as removable under Section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and released him on parole. He had no criminal history and was not subject to a final order of removal, with his removal proceedings still ongoing according to the Executive Office for Immigration Review's automated case information system.
On September 10, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement re-detained Laporte and transferred him to the California City Detention Facility. On October 2, 2026, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 along with a motion for a temporary restraining order, arguing that his continued detention without a hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The government opposed the petition, contending that Laporte was an 'applicant for admission' subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), but conceded that he fell within the category of cases where the court had typically ordered immediate release.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas corpus petition and ordered Laporte's immediate release, finding that his re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court rejected the government's argument that Laporte was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), noting that the government offered little to rebut the due process claim and made no effort to distinguish the case from numerous prior decisions finding this legal position incorrect and the detention unlawful.
The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot given the grant of habeas relief. Additionally, the court enjoined and restrained the government from re-detaining Laporte unless it provides at least seven days' advance notice and holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Laporte is a flight risk or danger to the community. If legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without advance notice, a post-deprivation hearing consistent with these requirements must be provided within seven days of the arrest. The order further permits re-detention if Laporte becomes subject to a final order of removal, for the sole and limited purpose of executing removal, with a bond hearing provided in the timeframe required by law. The court directed the clerk to serve the detention facility with the order, close the case, and enter judgment for the petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the habeas corpus petition and ordered the immediate release of a Haitian national who had been re-detained by ICE without a hearing.
- The court found that re-detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, particularly given the petitioner's lack of criminal history and absence of any parole violation.
- The court rejected the government's mandatory detention argument under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), citing a consistent line of cases in the Eastern District of California and the Ninth Circuit that have found this position legally incorrect.
- The court imposed forward-looking injunctive relief requiring the government to provide seven days' notice and a bond hearing before any future re-detention, with the government bearing the burden of proving flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence, subject to two exceptions: a post-deprivation hearing within seven days when arrest without advance notice is justified, and detention solely to execute removal if a final order of removal issues.
- The case was decided on the existing record without a hearing or additional briefing, as the government did not oppose the court ruling on the underlying habeas petition.
Why It Matters
This decision adds to a growing body of case law in the Eastern District of California rejecting the government's position that individuals who entered through CBP One appointments and were paroled into the United States are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). The court's citation of eight prior decisions reaching the same conclusion underscores the consistency with which federal courts have rejected this legal theory.
The decision is notable for its injunctive relief, which goes beyond simply ordering release and imposes specific procedural requirements on any future detention, including advance notice, a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, and a heightened clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, while preserving a narrow path for detention to execute a final removal order. This framework provides meaningful protection against arbitrary re-detention and reflects the court's willingness to craft remedies that address the due process concerns at the heart of these cases.