Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dabens Blanc, a native and citizen of Haiti, presented himself at the Brownsville, Texas port of entry on April 5, 2024, and was processed and paroled into the United States. He then applied for Temporary Protected Status, and on April 22, 2025, an immigration judge granted his motion to terminate removal proceedings. In May 2025 he applied for asylum and withholding of removal. According to the petition, he lived openly for more than two years while pursuing immigration relief and obtaining employment authorization.
On September 14, 2026, Blanc alleges, ICE officers arrested him while he was making a food delivery as a DoorDash driver, and he has since been held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. On September 30, 2026, he filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of California. The petition alleged that the government revoked his parole without written notice or a meaningful chance to be heard, violating the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act, and it also asserted a claim for unlawful warrantless arrest.
Respondents filed a response and Blanc filed a traverse. Respondents conceded that he was paroled on April 5, 2024, and did not dispute his claim that no notice or hearing preceded the revocation of his parole. Judge Linda Lopez issued the order on October 19, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition on the Fifth Amendment claim alone. It declined to reach the APA claim, noting in a footnote that other Southern District decisions have found APA violations in similar circumstances, and it did not address the warrantless arrest claim. Because the petition could be resolved on due process grounds, those questions remain undecided in this case.
The court reasoned that due process protects noncitizens, and that a person released from ICE custody has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, because release carries an implicit promise that liberty will be revoked only if conditions are violated and reflects a determination that the person is neither a flight risk nor a danger. Relying on district court decisions, it stated that ICE may not re-arrest a released noncitizen absent a change in circumstances. Because Blanc was paroled in April 2024, he held such an interest.
Applying the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found that each favored Blanc. His interest in freedom from detention is significant. The risk of erroneous deprivation was high because he received no reason and no hearing, respondents offered no argument or evidence of changed circumstances, and they did not claim he violated the conditions of his release; the value of notice and a pre-deprivation hearing was therefore high. The government's interest in detaining him without notice, reasoning and a hearing was low, and nothing suggested those procedures would be fiscally or administratively burdensome. The court held the detention unlawful, ordered immediate release subject only to the conditions of his preexisting parole, and directed the clerk to enter judgment for Blanc and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A district court in the Southern District of California held that a noncitizen paroled into the United States has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody.
- The court found that revoking parole without notice, a stated reason, or a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test.
- Respondents' failure to produce evidence of changed circumstances, flight risk, danger, or a violation of release conditions weighed heavily in the court's analysis.
- Relief was immediate release subject only to the conditions of preexisting parole, with judgment entered and the case closed; the APA claim was not decided.
Why It Matters
The order is one of many habeas decisions in California federal courts, which this court described as countless similar cases in the district, granting release when parole is revoked without process. It relies heavily on Northern District of California authority such as Pinchi v. Noem and Saravia v. Sessions, along with Southern District decisions such as Noori v. LaRose.
It is a single unreported district court ruling and does not bind other judges. Its reasoning is tied to a petitioner whose parole was revoked without notice or a hearing and whom respondents did not claim had violated his conditions or become a flight risk or danger. The order does not decide what process would suffice if the government sought to re-detain him, and it leaves the APA and warrantless-arrest claims unresolved.