Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mohamed Mohamud Jimale, a native and citizen of Somalia, was arrested near the Calexico Port of Entry on November 9, 2024, and released on interim parole on December 2, 2024. He filed an asylum application on March 11, 2025. On July 13, 2026, he was arrested during a regular ICE check-in appointment. On October 16, 2026, he petitioned the Southern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that his parole was revoked without written notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Respondents filed a response. They acknowledged that Jimale had been released from immigration custody on parole and said they had insufficient information about the termination of that parole. They did not dispute his claim that no notice or hearing preceded the revocation. The order describes no evidentiary hearing, so the court treated the absence of process as uncontested.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Jimale's release on parole in December 2024 gave him a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, so due process required procedural protections before that interest could be taken away. Relying on Pinchi v. Noem and other district decisions, it reasoned that release carries an implicit promise that liberty will be revoked only if release conditions are not met, and that ICE generally may not re-arrest a released noncitizen absent a change in circumstances.
Applying the three-factor Mathews v. Eldridge test, the court found that each factor favored Jimale. His interest in freedom from detention is substantial. The risk of erroneous deprivation was high because his parole was revoked without a stated reason or a chance to respond. Respondents offered no argument or evidence that the earlier determination that he was neither a flight risk nor a danger had changed, and they did not claim he violated his parole conditions. The government's interest in detaining him without notice, reasoning and a hearing was low, and nothing suggested that notice and a pre-deprivation hearing would be fiscally or administratively burdensome, since custody hearings are routine and inexpensive.
The court concluded the detention was unlawful, granted the petition, and ordered immediate release subject only to the conditions of his preexisting parole, citing Noori v. LaRose and Ortega v. Bonnar as comparable. Respondents must file a status report confirming release by 3:00 p.m. on October 26, 2026. The order resolves only the due process claim. It does not decide Jimale's asylum application, his removability, or whether the government could lawfully re-detain him after providing process.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen released from immigration custody on parole holds a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, even though ICE had discretion over the initial release decision.
- The court looked for evidence of changed circumstances, such as dangerousness or flight risk, to justify re-arresting someone the government had earlier released, and respondents offered none here.
- On this record, revoking parole without notice, a stated reason or a pre-deprivation hearing failed all three Mathews factors, particularly because respondents did not contest the absence of process.
- The remedy was immediate release subject only to the conditions of the existing parole, together with a status report due within days confirming compliance.
- Because this is an unreported order by one district judge resolving a single petition, it does not bind other courts and mainly reflects the approach taken in similar cases in this district.
Why It Matters
The order adds to the district court decisions the judge describes as countless similar cases in this district, granting habeas relief when people released on parole are re-detained without process. Its reasoning rests mainly on the Mathews framework and district authority such as Pinchi, with Ninth Circuit authority used only for the general principle, drawn from Hernandez v. Sessions, that freedom from imprisonment is at the core of the liberty the Due Process Clause protects.
Its weight is limited. It is a short, unreported ruling that turns heavily on respondents' failure to contest key points and on their thin information about why parole ended. It leaves open what process would suffice if the government seeks to detain Jimale again, and it says nothing about the merits of his asylum claim. Practitioners should treat it as a persuasive illustration of how courts in this district currently handle such petitions, not as controlling law.