Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Jean Leonel Amazan, a native and citizen of Haiti, entered the United States in August 2022 and was released by immigration authorities on a Form I-94. He subsequently obtained a work permit, driver’s license, and Social Security card, and lived in the United States for over four years without a criminal record. On August 27, 2026, Amazan was arrested by ICE while leaving work and has been detained continuously since. On August 28, 2026, he was issued a Notice to Appear for standard removal proceedings under INA § 240 (8 U.S.C. § 1229a), which alleged he had been paroled into the United States for one year upon arrival in 2022. Amazan filed a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 on October 2, 2026, challenging the legality of his detention. Respondent did not contest Amazan’s factual allegations but argued his detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he is an “applicant for admission” who was paroled at the border, rendering him ineligible for a bond hearing. Respondent cited Avila v. Bondi and Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi in support. Notably, respondent conceded that “this case is in the category of immigration habeas cases for which the Court has typically ordered immediate release on due process grounds.”
The Court’s Holding
The Court recommends granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordering Amazan’s immediate release. The Court held that Amazan is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) because he was apprehended in the interior of the United States after residing here for over four years, making 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) the applicable detention authority.
Under Ninth Circuit precedent in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, noncitizens “present without admission who are apprehended in the interior of the United States are subject to the detention regime of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2)(A).” The Court further held that Amazan’s prior release on his own recognizance and four years of living in the community created a constitutionally protected liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the Court found all three factors weighed in Amazan’s favor: his strong private interest in liberty after four years of conditional release; the high risk of erroneous deprivation because he received no bond hearing and the government does not allege he is a flight risk or danger; and the government’s low interest in detaining him without a hearing given his prior release determination, clean record, and community ties. The Court concluded Amazan was entitled to a pre-deprivation bond hearing before re-detention and should be immediately released.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens released into the United States and apprehended years later in the interior are subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), per Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock (9th Cir. 2026).
- A prior release on recognizance followed by years of residence in the community creates a constitutionally protected liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment, analogous to parole revocation protections recognized in Morrissey v. Brewer.
- Due process requires a pre-deprivation bond hearing before the government can re-detain a noncitizen who has been at liberty for an extended period, absent urgent circumstances.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge factors weigh heavily in favor of release when the government does not allege flight risk or dangerousness, the noncitizen has no criminal record, and detention follows years of lawful community presence.
- The Court enjoined re-detention unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence at a constitutionally adequate bond hearing that the noncitizen is a flight risk or danger to the community.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of the government’s post-July 2025 policy shift attempting to classify long-term residents as “applicants for admission” subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A). The ruling aligns with a national consensus across multiple circuits (Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eleventh) and numerous district courts that have found this interpretation unlawful.
By recognizing a protected liberty interest arising from extended conditional release, the Court extends due process protections akin to parole revocation to immigration detainees, requiring individualized bond hearings before re-detention. The decision underscores that the government’s interest in detention without process is minimal when it previously determined the individual posed no risk and the individual has since established substantial community ties.