Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Wilio Isaias Carrillo Carrillo, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States on January 5, 2018. On August 17, 2018, DHS issued him a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) and a Notice of Custody Determination (Form I-286) releasing him on his own recognizance, conditioned on participation in the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program. By September 2019, electronic monitoring was no longer required. DHS never alleged a violation of release conditions or initiated revocation proceedings. On June 6, 2022, DHS and Petitioner filed a joint motion to dismiss removal proceedings, which the immigration court granted on July 5, 2022.
On October 1, 2026, ICE officers arrested Petitioner at a gas station without any prior notice that DHS was revoking his release. He was transferred to the Otay Mesa Detention Center and served with a new Notice to Appear dated October 1, 2026. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 10, 2026, arguing that his re-detention violated his due process rights. Respondents asserted Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) but acknowledged his prior release on conditional parole and stated they "do not contest the petition and defer to the Court as to the relief sought."
The Court’s Holding
The court assumed without deciding that 8 U.S.C. § 1226 governs Petitioner's detention. Relying on Gonzalez-Ruiz v. Warden/Facility Adm'r and Faizyan v. Casey, the court recognized that revocation of conditional parole under Section 1226 without a pre-deprivation hearing violates due process rights and renders detention unlawful. The court construed Respondents' non-opposition to immediate release as a concession that Petitioner's detention violates due process. The court found Petitioner received even less process than the petitioner in Noori v. LaRose, where the district court held that revoking parole via mass generic notification and same-day arrest violated the Fifth Amendment. Here, Petitioner received no notification or individualized reason for revocation before summary detention, and Respondents never explained what circumstances changed to warrant detention.
The court held that a bond hearing would not remedy the Fifth Amendment violation already experienced; only release from detention can accomplish that. The court granted the petition in part, ordering Respondents to release Petitioner within twenty-four hours under the same conditions existing immediately prior to his October 1, 2026 detention. The court enjoined Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner unless a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker determines he presents a flight risk or danger to the community justifying physical custody. The court also enjoined placing Petitioner in an ATD program or ankle monitor upon release. The request for attorney's fees and costs was denied without prejudice, with leave to file an application within thirty days of judgment entry.
Key Takeaways
- Revocation of conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) without a pre-deprivation hearing violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- The government's failure to provide any notice or individualized reasoning for revocation before re-detention renders the detention unlawful, even if a bond hearing is later scheduled.
- A bond hearing does not cure the antecedent due process violation of summary re-detention without prior process.
- Courts may enjoin re-detention absent a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker finding flight risk or danger to the community.
- Respondents' non-opposition to immediate release was construed as a concession that the detention violated due process rights.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces due process protections for noncitizens released on conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), holding that the government cannot summarily revoke parole and re-detain without providing notice, reasoning, and an opportunity to be heard before deprivation of liberty. The ruling aligns with a line of Southern District of California cases (Gonzalez-Ruiz, Faizyan, Noori) establishing that conditional parole creates a protectable liberty interest requiring pre-deprivation process. The injunction against ATD enrollment and ankle monitoring upon release further limits the government's ability to impose new restrictions without proper process. The decision underscores that post-deprivation remedies like bond hearings cannot substitute for constitutionally required pre-deprivation procedures.