Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dufrene Stephane, a citizen and native of Haiti, presented himself at the San Ysidro Port of Entry on August 25, 2023. DHS issued a Notice to Appear alleging he lacked the required immigration document, and he was paroled into the country until August 23, 2024. While removal proceedings were pending he applied for asylum. Though his parole period expired, he was not detained and continued living at liberty, with family ties that include a son born in the United States. An in-person individual hearing was set for October 29, 2026.
According to the petition and a DHS Form I-213, ICE officers took Stephane into custody in Broward County, Florida on August 13, 2026, and he was later moved to the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Calexico. He alleges he received no notice of why he was detained and no individualized assessment of danger or flight risk. His verified habeas petition, filed October 6, 2026, asserted Fifth Amendment due process, 8 U.S.C. § 1226 as interpreted in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, and Administrative Procedure Act claims, and sought immediate release.
Respondents argued that Stephane is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and that Rodriguez Vazquez does not apply. They acknowledged, however, that the court's prior decisions would control if the court adhered to them, admitted having insufficient information about termination of his parole, did not oppose the petition, and deferred to the court on relief.
The Court’s Holding
The court assumed, without deciding, that Section 1225(b)(2) governs Stephane's present detention. Even so, that would not show the government lawfully terminated his parole or gave adequate process before detaining him, and Respondents made no attempt to show an individualized determination. Because they did not oppose release, the court construed their position as a concession that the detention violates due process. It therefore did not reach the Section 1226 and APA claims or the challenge to the warrantless arrest.
Relying on Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (S.D. Cal. 2025), where release was ordered after parole was revoked by generic notice and a same-day arrest, the court found that Stephane received even less process: no notification or individualized reason before summary detention. Respondents never explained what had changed. A bond hearing would not cure the violation already suffered; only release could. A footnote added that, even if Respondents had argued that expired parole reverts authority to Section 1225(b)(2), many courts in the Ninth Circuit hold that expiration of parole does not extinguish due process entitlement.
The petition was granted in part. Respondents must offer Stephane release in the Southern District of California within twenty-four hours of the order, or release in or near Broward County by October 26, 2026, under the conditions that existed before August 13, 2026, and must return his identification documents and belongings. They are enjoined from re-detaining him unless, at a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, they show by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger, and they must consider alternatives such as an ankle monitor or residence restrictions. Fees and costs were denied without prejudice to an application within thirty days of judgment. A joint status report confirming release is due November 2, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated the government's failure to give any notice or individualized reasons before re-detaining a parolee as a due process violation warranting release.
- Respondents' non-opposition to release was construed as a concession, so the court did not decide whether Section 1225(b)(2) or Section 1226 governs.
- The court indicated in a footnote that expiration of parole does not end a petitioner's due process interest in avoiding detention without an individualized hearing.
- Any future re-detention requires a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker under a clear and convincing evidence standard, with consideration of alternatives to detention.
- Attorney's fees and costs were denied without prejudice, leaving an application open for thirty days after entry of judgment.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court order, not a precedential opinion. It rests largely on the government's non-opposition and its inability to supply facts about the parole termination. It applies Noori and other district decisions rather than announcing a new rule, and it expressly leaves open which detention statute applies, as well as the APA claim.
For detainees in a similar posture, the order shows that a court may order release and impose a heightened pre-deprivation hearing requirement where the government gives no notice or reasons. Its relief is limited to this petitioner, and the underlying removal case, including the asylum application and the scheduled October 29, 2026 hearing, was not decided.