Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Sylvio Maurice, a native and citizen of Haiti, entered the United States on April 13, 2024, seeking asylum.
He was released on humanitarian parole by Customs and Border Protection and subsequently filed an asylum application with USCIS.
Maurice alleges he faithfully attended all required immigration appointments.
On August 13, 2026, while on his way to work, Maurice was apprehended and taken into custody by immigration authorities.
He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 14, 2026, arguing that the government revoked his parole without identifying any materially changed circumstances, without finding he was a danger to the community or a flight risk, and without providing notice or a hearing.
Respondents opposed the petition, arguing that Maurice’s parole had expired and that service of a Notice to Appear (NTA) in 2024 subjected him to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, rendering his due process claims moot.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered Maurice’s immediate release.
The Court held it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because Maurice’s challenge targeted the legality of his detention and due process violations, not the merits of removal proceedings, placing it outside the jurisdiction-stripping scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) per Ninth Circuit precedent.
On the merits, the Court held that the summary revocation of Maurice’s parole without notice, reasoning, or a hearing violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Applying the Mathews v.
Eldridge balancing test, the Court found: (1) Maurice possessed a significant liberty interest after nearly two years of conditional release during which he established community ties, employment, and family connections; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation was high because the government offered no evidence of changed circumstances—such as danger or flight risk—to justify revocation; and (3) the government’s interest in detaining him without process was low.
The Court rejected Respondents’ argument that § 1225 mandatory detention applied, citing Rodriguez Vazquez v.
Bostock for the principle that noncitizens apprehended in the interior are governed by § 1226, and noting that expiration of parole does not extinguish due process rights.
The Court ordered Maurice’s release under his original parole terms and enjoined re-detention without seven days’ notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral fact-finder where the government must show materially changed circumstances or prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention is justified.
Key Takeaways
- District courts retain habeas jurisdiction under § 2241 to review due process challenges to immigration detention, even where § 1252(g) might otherwise limit review of removal proceedings.
- Humanitarian parolees who have resided in the U.S. for a substantial period (here, nearly two years) develop a protected liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment that cannot be extinguished by the mere expiration of parole or service of an NTA.
- The government must provide notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before revoking parole and re-detaining a noncitizen, and must demonstrate materially changed circumstances (danger or flight risk) to justify continued detention.
- Mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) does not apply to noncitizens apprehended in the interior of the United States after being paroled and residing in the country for an extended period; such individuals fall under § 1226.
- The Court’s injunction requires seven days’ notice, a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, and the right to counsel before any future re-detention.
Why It Matters
The ruling gives California practitioners a concrete example of how federal courts separate the statutory source of immigration detention from the process constitutionally required after release and re-detention.
It also shows why the precise remedy and procedural posture matter: a briefing order, recommendation, bond-hearing order, and final release order have different immediate consequences.
Counsel should preserve the governing custody documents, dates, notices, and evidence concerning danger, flight risk, and removal feasibility.