Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Nahun Rivera Hernandez, a citizen of Honduras, entered the United States on February 12, 2024. The order recounts that immigration officials apprehended him on arrival but granted him conditional parole, and that his removal proceedings remain pending. On September 10, 2026, immigration officers re-detained him during a raid at an apartment complex. According to the order, no hearing was held before the re-detention, and he has not been given a bond hearing. He was first housed at a facility in Oklahoma and was then transferred to the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, where he remains detained.
On September 23, 2026, he petitioned the Southern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, contending that his detention violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. He asked the court to assume jurisdiction and order his immediate release or, alternatively, to order an adequate bond hearing. Respondents answered that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and did not oppose an order directing a bond hearing under that statute. They also argued that the court need not reach the constitutional claim because a bond hearing offered another way to resolve the case. For that argument they cited Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder and INS v. Bagamasbad, which describe the general practice of avoiding constitutional questions when another ground will dispose of a matter.
The Court’s Holding
The court first set out the governing standard. Section 2241 permits courts to grant the writ to people held in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States, and Ninth Circuit authority confirms that this includes noncitizens in custody. The court then rejected Respondents' avoidance argument, stating in a footnote that a due process analysis was necessary in this case. It did not elaborate on why a bond-hearing order would not suffice.
On the merits, the court relied on a 2025 Southern District of California decision, Noori v. LaRose. It treated that decision as establishing that Petitioner was entitled to due process before his parole was terminated, including written notice, the reasons for the termination, and an opportunity to contest the determination. The court noted that Petitioner contended, and Respondents did not dispute, that he received no individualized determination and no opportunity to be heard before he was detained. On that basis it found that the revocation of his release and his detention violate his due process rights.
The court granted the petition. It ordered Respondents to release Petitioner immediately under the previously determined conditions and enjoined them from re-detaining him without complying with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process. It directed the Clerk to close the matter. The remedy is therefore release, not the alternative bond hearing that Petitioner had requested and Respondents had not opposed. The order does not decide whether section 1226(a) governs his detention. Its factual premises rest on Petitioner's uncontested account, and it describes no evidentiary hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A district court may decline to resolve a habeas case by ordering only a bond hearing when the petitioner challenges the revocation of parole itself; here the court stated that a due process analysis was necessary.
- Following Noori v. LaRose, the court treated written notice, the reasons for termination, and an opportunity to contest the decision as required before parole is terminated.
- The ruling rested in part on Respondents' failure to dispute that no individualized determination or chance to be heard preceded the re-detention.
- The remedy was immediate release under the earlier conditions, coupled with an injunction against re-detention without compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process.
- The order does not resolve whether section 1226(a) governs Petitioner's detention or what process would suffice for any lawful future re-detention.
Why It Matters
This is a short, unreported order from a single district judge, so it carries persuasive weight at most. Its value lies in showing how Southern District of California courts are applying Noori v. LaRose to people released on conditional parole and later re-detained without a prior hearing. It also shows the court declining a government request to resolve the case on narrower statutory grounds.
Much remains open. The order does not say what notice or hearing would satisfy 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process if the government again seeks to detain Petitioner, or which statute ultimately governs his custody. It also leaves untouched the merits of his pending removal proceedings and does not address any appeal.