California Case Summaries

Arne Jackson v. Markwayne Mullin, Jeremy Casey, Gregory J. Archambeault, Todd Lyons, Todd Blanche, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Department of Homeland Security — Court Grants Habeas Petition and Orders Immediate Release of Humanitarian Parolee Detained Without Due Process

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Arne Jackson v. Markwayne Mullin, Jeremy Casey, Gregory J. Archambeault, Todd Lyons, Todd Blanche, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Department of Homeland Security
Court
U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
Judge
James E. Simmons Jr.
Date Decided
2026-11-06
Docket No.
3:26-cv-06193
Status
Unreported
Topics
habeas corpus, immigration detention, humanitarian parole, procedural due process, liberty interest, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asylum applicant, immediate release

Background

Arne Jackson, a native of Haiti, entered the United States on February 16, 2024, after being paroled into the country on a form of humanitarian parole designated by the class of admission 'HHP.' Following his arrival, Jackson complied with the requirements of his immigration proceedings, applied for asylum, and obtained work authorization. On June 30, 2026, while riding as a passenger in a car, Jackson was detained by immigration authorities. He alleged that he was never given a warrant at the time of his arrest and was provided no notice or opportunity to be heard before being taken into custody. He was held at the Imperial Regional Detention Center.

Jackson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, naming multiple federal officials and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as respondents. The court issued an order to show cause, and the respondents filed a return. In that return, the respondents acknowledged that Jackson had previously been released on humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) and stated that they did not oppose the petition, deferring to the court as to the appropriate relief.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted Jackson's habeas petition and ordered his immediate release. In light of the respondents' decision not to oppose the petition, the court declined to engage in a full analysis of the claims. Instead, it relied on its own prior reasoning in similar cases, holding that a prior grant of release — including humanitarian parole — creates a liberty interest for the petitioner and entitles that individual to procedural due process protections before being re-detained. The court cited its earlier decisions in Mohammadi v. Larose and Isoev v. Larose, both from the Southern District of California, as supporting authority.

The court ordered respondents to immediately release Jackson from custody, subject to any conditions of his prior release that existed at the time he was re-detained. The parties were further ordered to file a joint status report by November 12, 2026, confirming that Jackson had been released. The clerk of court was directed to close the case.

Key Takeaways

  • A prior grant of humanitarian parole creates a constitutionally protected liberty interest that entitles the parolee to procedural due process before being re-detained by immigration authorities.
  • The government declined to oppose the habeas petition, acknowledging the petitioner's prior release on parole and deferring to the court on the appropriate relief.
  • The court ordered the petitioner's immediate release from custody, subject to any conditions that were part of his original parole at the time of re-detention.
  • This ruling is consistent with a growing body of decisions from the Southern District of California holding that immigration parolees cannot be summarily re-detained without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
  • The case was resolved on an expedited basis, with the court issuing its order just days after the petition was filed and the respondents submitted their return.

Why It Matters

This decision adds to an emerging line of cases in the Southern District of California recognizing that individuals released into the United States on humanitarian parole possess a liberty interest that triggers procedural due process protections. The ruling reinforces that immigration authorities cannot re-detain parolees without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, even when the individual's underlying immigration proceedings remain pending.

The government's decision not to oppose the petition is notable and may reflect a recognition that the legal framework supporting due process rights for parolees is well established in this district. For practitioners representing immigration detainees, this case underscores the viability of § 2241 habeas petitions as a rapid and effective mechanism to challenge warrantless re-detention of individuals previously released on parole.

Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket

Scroll to Top