Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Samuel Kercelin, a Haitian citizen, was paroled into the United States in 2022. His initial removal proceedings were terminated, he obtained Temporary Protected Status, applied for asylum, and received employment authorization valid through 2029. Masked ICE officers arrested him outside his San Diego apartment in September 2026 without advance written notice or a meaningful opportunity to contest the decision.
Kercelin filed a federal habeas petition challenging the loss of his liberty under the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The government acknowledged that he had previously been released on parole and said it lacked sufficient information about how that parole had been terminated. It pointed to a 2024 arrest but supplied no details beyond his release the following day and did not argue that he had violated his release conditions.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the writ and ordered Kercelin’s immediate release on his prior parole conditions. Once the government releases a noncitizen, that person has a protected liberty interest in remaining free absent materially changed circumstances. Revoking parole without notice, reasons, or a pre-deprivation hearing created a high risk of an erroneous loss of liberty.
The unexplained 2024 arrest did not justify re-detention. The government offered no evidence that Kercelin had become a danger or flight risk, and it identified no substantial burden from providing a hearing. Balancing his liberty interest, the risk of error, and the government’s interests, the court found a due-process violation. Because that constitutional ruling supplied complete relief, it did not decide the separate Administrative Procedure Act claim.
Key Takeaways
- Prior release from immigration custody can create a protected liberty interest that ICE may not revoke summarily.
- An arrest alone, without charges, details, or a demonstrated change in circumstances, may not justify re-detention without process.
- The government’s inability to explain how parole ended can strongly support emergency habeas relief.
- The remedy may be immediate release on the old conditions, not merely a later bond hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision offers a direct route for California counsel representing people who were complying with parole or release conditions before an unexpected ICE arrest. The factual record should focus on the original release, subsequent compliance, immigration benefits or applications, and whether the government can identify any genuinely new danger or flight risk.
The order also shows why speed matters. A habeas petition filed immediately after arrest can frame the injury as an unlawful revocation of existing liberty, while requiring the government to explain the basis and procedure for its action.