Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Jemps Florient, a citizen of Haiti, entered the United States on humanitarian parole via the CBPOne application on December 17, 2023. He was arrested and detained on October 9, 2026. Florient filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his re-detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing or, at minimum, written notice of the reasons for revocation of his parole. He also alleged violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and 8 U.S.C. § 1357.
The government filed a response acknowledging that Florient had been previously released from immigration custody on parole. The government stated it had "insufficient information regarding termination of that parole" and did not oppose the petition, deferring to the court on appropriate relief. Florient sought immediate release from custody at the Otay Mesa Detention Center.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition, holding that Florient's re-detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard, and without evidence of materially changed circumstances, violated his due process rights. The court relied on precedent establishing that individuals released from custody, even conditionally, have a liberty interest in continued liberty. Citing Saravia v. Sessions and Kamalpreet v. Singh, the court held that once a noncitizen has been released, federal agents cannot rearrest them merely because they are subject to removal proceedings; rather, agents must present evidence of materially changed circumstances—such as danger to the community, flight risk, or a final order of removal. If the noncitizen disputes the justification, they are entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge.
The court found that Florient was initially released on humanitarian parole based on a determination that he was not a flight risk or danger to the community, and there was no evidence those circumstances had changed. Accordingly, the court ordered Florient's immediate release subject to the conditions of his preexisting release. The court further ruled that prior to any future re-detention, Florient is entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral immigration judge, at which the government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a danger or flight risk. The court declined to rule on Florient's remaining statutory claims in light of its due process holding.
Key Takeaways
- Re-detention of a noncitizen previously released on humanitarian parole requires evidence of materially changed circumstances, such as danger to the community or flight risk.
- A noncitizen has a protected liberty interest in continued release and is entitled to notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral immigration judge prior to re-detention.
- The government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that detention is warranted at any such hearing.
- The government's concession of insufficient information regarding parole termination supported the petitioner's due process claim.
- The court declined to address statutory claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and § 1357 after granting relief on constitutional grounds.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces due process protections for noncitizens released on humanitarian parole, establishing that the government cannot revoke parole and re-detain individuals without procedural safeguards. The ruling aligns with a growing body of district court precedent in California requiring individualized determinations and hearings before re-detention, and it imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard on the government.
The order has immediate practical effect by mandating the petitioner's release and setting binding conditions for any future detention, contributing to the evolving jurisprudence on immigration detention and parole revocation.