Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Elder Gonzalez Perez, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States on April 17, 2019, and was released on parole. On September 24, 2026, immigration officials arrested Petitioner and detained him at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that his continued detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Respondents, including Todd Blanche, stated that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) but did not oppose the petition and deferred to the Court on the appropriate relief.
The Court considered the petition and the respondents' return, noting that the government did not contest the petitioner's factual allegations or the legal basis for release. The Court relied on precedent from the Southern District of California, specifically 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), which granted release under similar factual circumstances involving parole revocation without adequate process. These decisions reflect a consistent approach in this district to immigration detention challenges where the government has not demonstrated that continued custody satisfies constitutional requirements.
The procedural posture is significant: Respondents did not contest the petition and expressly deferred to the Court on the appropriate relief. This concession meant the Court did not need to resolve disputed factual issues but could apply the established legal framework from its prior decisions. The order therefore functions as a straightforward application of settled district precedent rather than a novel expansion of habeas law.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordered Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody subject to the conditions of his preexisting parole. The Court further ordered that prior to any re-detention, Petitioner is entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation of his parole and a hearing before a neutral decision maker to determine whether detention is warranted. 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 Court ordered the parties to file a Joint Status Report by October 26, 2026, confirming Petitioner's release. As the order concludes the litigation, the Clerk of Court was directed to close the file. The decision rests on the determination that continued detention without a revocation hearing violates due process, consistent with prior rulings in this district applying similar reasoning to parole revocation cases.
The relief granted is comprehensive: immediate release, preservation of the preexisting parole conditions, and prospective procedural protections. The clear and convincing evidence standard imposed on the Government for any future detention is notably higher than the probable cause standard that might otherwise apply in immigration custody determinations. This heightened burden reflects the Court's view that parole revocation implicates a protected liberty interest requiring meaningful procedural safeguards.
Key Takeaways
- The Court granted habeas relief to a parolee detained by immigration authorities without a revocation hearing, finding the detention violated Fifth Amendment due process.
- Respondents did not oppose the petition and deferred to the Court on relief, eliminating any factual dispute about the detention's lawfulness.
- Release is conditioned on the terms of the petitioner's preexisting parole, preserving the original immigration status.
- Any future re-detention requires notice, a hearing before a neutral decision maker, and the government must prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
- The case was closed following the release order, with a status report due within five days to confirm compliance.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces due process protections for noncitizens released on parole who are subsequently detained by immigration authorities. By requiring a revocation hearing with a heightened burden of proof before re-detention, the Court aligns with a growing line of decisions in the Southern District of California that treat parole revocation as a liberty interest triggering constitutional safeguards. The government's decision not to oppose the petition underscores the vulnerability of detention practices that bypass procedural requirements.
The ruling provides a clear procedural framework for future cases: immediate release, preservation of parole conditions, and a mandatory hearing with a clear and convincing evidence standard before any re-detention. This contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on the intersection of immigration detention authority and Fifth Amendment due process rights. The order's citation to three prior district decisions demonstrates that this is not an isolated ruling but part of an established pattern in the Southern District of California.