Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ancelma Idalia Lopez Barrios, a native of Guatemala, was processed and paroled into the United States in September 2023. According to the order, the Department of Homeland Security issued her a Form I-94 reflecting an admission class of "DT." She alleged that from then on she remained at liberty, complied with immigration proceedings, and attended her appearances before the Immigration Court. On July 11, 2025, ICE officers arrested her after she appeared for a master calendar hearing at the Atlanta Immigration Court. As of the order she was held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.
She petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus in the Southern District of California. She alleged that she received no prior notice that her liberty would be revoked, no individualized explanation for the re-detention, and no opportunity to contest the revocation before a neutral decisionmaker. These are her allegations as recited by the court, and the order makes no independent factual findings on them. The court issued an order to show cause, Respondents filed a Return, and Petitioner filed a Traverse.
In the Return, Respondents confirmed that Petitioner had earlier been released on parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). They acknowledged that they had insufficient information about the termination of that parole to provide to the court, said they did not oppose the petition, and deferred to the court on the appropriate relief.
The Court’s Holding
Judge James E. Simmons Jr. granted the petition. In light of Respondents' statements, the court said it would decline to engage in a full analysis of the claims. It relied instead on its earlier decisions in Totskii v. LaRose and Isoev v. Larose, both issued in 2026, and on its observation that many courts, including this one, have repeatedly held that a prior grant of release creates a liberty interest and entitles the petitioner to procedural due process. Adopting that reasoning, the court found that due process requires Petitioner's release.
The relief is release, not a new hearing. Respondents were ordered to release Petitioner immediately, subject to any conditions of her prior release that existed when she was re-detained. The parties must file a Joint Status Report by October 28, 2026, confirming that she has been released, and the Clerk was directed to close the case.
The order is brief. It does not set out the due process analysis in detail, does not decide whether or how the parole was lawfully terminated, and does not say what process the government would have to provide in any future attempt to detain her. It is an unreported district court order that largely incorporates other rulings, and it carries no binding precedential weight.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated a prior grant of release, here parole in September 2023, as creating a liberty interest that triggers procedural due process protection against re-detention.
- Respondents acknowledged that they lacked information about how Petitioner's parole was terminated and chose not to oppose the petition, and the court therefore skipped a full merits analysis.
- The remedy was immediate release subject to the conditions of her earlier parole, rather than an order for a hearing, with a joint status report due October 28, 2026.
- The order incorporates earlier rulings from this court, so the detailed reasoning is found in Totskii and Isoev rather than in this short order.
- Because the government did not defend the detention, the order does not show how the court would rule on a contested record.
Why It Matters
The order shows how the Southern District of California is handling habeas petitions from people re-detained after being paroled into the country. The court said that many courts, including itself, have repeatedly reached the same conclusion about the liberty interest created by prior release, and it resolved this case by adopting that reasoning rather than writing anew. For detained parolees in this district, the practical lesson is that a petition with a documented earlier release may produce prompt release, particularly when the government does not contest it.
Its weight is limited, however. It is an unreported order from a single district judge, it is not binding on other judges, and it rested on the government's non-opposition and lack of information. It does not resolve cases in which the government offers evidence or arguments about why parole ended, and it does not decide what process would suffice for a future detention.