Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, identified as Jeffson C., is a citizen of Haiti who was released into the United States on humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). His parole was valid until March 5, 2026, and Respondents' own documentation reflects no criminal history. On September 21, 2026, ICE detained him in Newark, New Jersey, and he was later transferred to this district. On October 13, 2026, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
A magistrate judge recommended on October 20, 2026 that the petition be granted and Petitioner released immediately. Respondents objected on October 22, incorporating their opposition. They argued that because Petitioner entered on humanitarian parole he remains at the threshold of entry and is entitled only to statutory procedures, relying on the Ninth Circuit's Padilla v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 2026 WL 2822044 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2026). Padilla involved people apprehended in the interior, found to have a credible fear, and placed in regular removal proceedings, whom the government claimed could be detained without bond hearings. The Ninth Circuit rejected that position and treated the entry fiction as a narrow exception to the rule that due process turns on presence in the United States.
The Court’s Holding
Conducting de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court adopted the findings and recommendations and rejected Respondents' reading of Padilla. As the court read it, Padilla applies the entry fiction in an admission case, not a detention case, and confines it to an extremely narrow category of people apprehended at or very near a point of entry. Outside that category, every person in the United States is entitled to Fifth Amendment due process regardless of citizenship or legal status.
The court distinguished Mezei, a Supreme Court decision about a person wholly excluded and held at Ellis Island, and Barrera-Echavarria, a Ninth Circuit en banc decision about a Mariel Cuban detained for years pending deportation who, the court observed, apparently did not contest parole revocation because it followed criminal convictions. Here, by contrast, Petitioner alleges that after release into the interior his parole was arbitrarily revoked, presenting a due process challenge to re-detention by someone physically inside the United States. The court also noted that an out-of-circuit decision cited by Respondents involved a person held continuously since presenting at a port of entry.
Relying on district decisions including Vasquez v. Hernandez and Diaz-Alfonso v. Warden, the court held that Petitioner's admission status reverted to that of an arriving noncitizen when his parole expired, but the Due Process Clause still required adequate procedures for his detention. Re-detention without pre-deprivation process violated due process. Citing Jimenez Peraza v. Mullin and Quiala-Fonseca v. Blanche, the court found immediate release the proper remedy despite the expired parole. The petition was granted. Respondents must immediately release Petitioner on any conditions that applied before the September 21, 2026 detention and may not re-detain him for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a pre-detention hearing before an immigration judge. The case was closed.
Key Takeaways
- The court read Padilla to limit the entry fiction to admission questions and an extremely narrow category of people, not to detention challenges by someone released into the interior.
- Expiration of humanitarian parole returns a person to arriving-noncitizen status for admission purposes, but due process limits on detention continue to apply.
- The court found re-detention without pre-deprivation process unlawful and ordered immediate release as the remedy.
- The order bars re-detention for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, unless Petitioner first receives notice and a hearing before an immigration judge.
- A prompt re-detention after parole ends may be treated differently, as the court noted in distinguishing Kleber Vasquez.
Why It Matters
This is a district court order in a single habeas case, adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation. It is not designated as a reported decision, so it is persuasive rather than binding, although it applies Ninth Circuit reasoning in Padilla and aligns with other recent district rulings it cites from the Eastern District of California and the Western District of Washington.
The ruling is limited. It does not hold that humanitarian parolees can never be detained after parole ends; the court contrasted a decision finding no violation where a parolee was promptly re-detained. It treats arbitrary revocation as Petitioner's allegation, does not reproduce the magistrate judge's findings, and does not address removal proceedings or any appeal by Respondents, all of which remain open.