Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Alfonso Jose Cardenas Perez, a Venezuelan national, was paroled into the United States in June 2023 under the Venezuelan Humanitarian Parole Program and subsequently applied for asylum, which remains pending. His parole later expired on an unknown date, but he remained in the United States. On September 5, 2026, ICE agents arrested him during a vehicle stop without providing advance notice or a pre-deprivation hearing. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 26, 2026, challenging his detention, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order. The court set a briefing schedule and directed the respondent to address whether any law or fact distinguished the case from prior decisions involving similar circumstances. The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the case was distinguishable because petitioner was originally released on parole, but conceded the court could rule on the merits of the underlying petition.
The court found that petitioner's parole into the United States gave him a liberty interest in his continued release. Relying on Rocha Chavarria v. Chestnut, 2025 WL 3533606 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), which involved a petitioner also released on parole, the court concluded that detaining petitioner without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process. The court also cited Perdomo v. Warden, Greene Cnty. Jail, 2026 WL 2969345 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 2, 2026), which ordered immediate release of a Venezuelan parolee on the same reasoning. The court noted that respondent's attempt to distinguish Chavarria was unfounded because Chavarria was among the cases cited in the court's prior order and involved a petitioner previously released on parole.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered respondent to immediately release petitioner under the same conditions, if any, he was subject to prior to his re-detention on or about September 5, 2026. The court also enjoined and restrained respondent from re-detaining petitioner for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without notice and a hearing before an immigration judge at which respondent bears the burden of establishing that petitioner is either a danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. The petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order was denied as moot in light of the habeas relief granted. The clerk was directed to serve the order on the California City Detention Center and to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and close the case.
The court's decision rests on the due process principle that a noncitizen paroled into the United States acquires a liberty interest in continued release that cannot be terminated without notice and a hearing. The court rejected the government's argument that the case was distinguishable from prior precedent because the petitioner was paroled, noting that the controlling precedent specifically involved a paroled petitioner. The injunction against future detention without a hearing provides ongoing protection beyond the immediate release order.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen paroled into the United States under the Venezuelan Humanitarian Parole Program acquires a liberty interest in continued release that is protected by the Due Process Clause.
- ICE may not detain such a parolee without providing advance notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge.
- At any such hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a danger or flight risk.
- The court granted immediate habeas relief rather than merely a temporary restraining order, rendering the TRO motion moot.
- The court admonished government counsel for asserting a distinction from controlling precedent that the precedent itself directly addressed.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces due process protections for humanitarian parolees, holding that parole status creates a constitutionally protected liberty interest that survives parole expiration. The ruling aligns with a growing body of district court decisions requiring notice and hearing before ICE can re-detain individuals previously released on parole. The injunctive relief against future detention without a hearing provides a structural safeguard beyond the individual petitioner's release. The court's admonition to government counsel highlights the importance of accurately representing controlling precedent in immigration detention litigation.