Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jean Richard Dorrelus, a citizen of Haiti, alleged in his petition that he entered the United States on October 26, 2023, and was released on parole at that time. He further alleged that he filed an asylum application in November 2024. According to the petition, immigration officials arrested him on October 7, 2026, and he has been held at the Otay Mesa Detention Facility since then. These facts are recited as Petitioner's allegations; the order does not make independent factual findings about them.
Dorrelus filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of California, alleging that his continued detention violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Respondents, including Christopher LaRose, filed a return stating that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that they do not oppose the petition and defer to the Court on the appropriate relief. The order is a short district court ruling that resolves the petition on that record.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the petition. It found that Petitioner is entitled to release, citing three Southern District of California decisions that granted release under similar facts: Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (S.D. Cal. 2025), Tran v. LaRose, 2026 WL 1303166 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2026), and Antonio v. LaRose, 2026 WL 1215037 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2026). The order does not set out the reasoning of those cases or analyze the due process claim at length, so its content is limited to the relief granted and the authorities it cites.
The Court ordered Respondents to release Petitioner immediately from custody, subject to the conditions of his preexisting release. It also ordered that, before any re-detention, Petitioner is entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation of his release and a hearing before a neutral decision maker to determine whether detention is warranted. At that hearing, the Government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.
The parties must file a Joint Status Report by October 23, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released. Because the Court viewed the order as concluding the litigation, it directed the Clerk to close the file. This is a grant of the habeas petition and a final disposition of the case, not a dismissal with leave to amend.
Key Takeaways
- The Court granted a § 2241 habeas petition and ordered immediate release, subject to the conditions of Petitioner's preexisting release, after Respondents deferred to the Court on the proper remedy.
- Respondents said Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) but did not oppose the petition, so the ruling rests on an unopposed record rather than a contested adversarial decision.
- The order bars re-detention without prior notice of the reasons for revocation and a hearing before a neutral decision maker, where the Government must prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
- The Court relied on three earlier Southern District of California decisions without detailing their reasoning, so the order is of limited use as independent authority.
- A Joint Status Report confirming release is due October 23, 2026, and the file was ordered closed.
Why It Matters
The order shows how judges in the Southern District of California are handling habeas petitions by noncitizens who were released on parole and later arrested and detained under § 1226(a). Even though the government declined to oppose, the Court granted not just release but forward-looking procedural protections against re-detention, including a neutral decision maker and a heightened burden of proof placed on the Government.
Its weight is modest. It is a short order that does not articulate a standalone due process analysis, resolve the merits of Petitioner's asylum application, or address his immigration status beyond the release conditions. Whether Petitioner may later be detained lawfully remains open, but only after the process the Court specified. Practitioners should look to Noori and the other cited decisions for the underlying reasoning, and should note that the order binds only these parties.