Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Rejinald Joseph, a citizen of Haiti, entered the United States on July 8, 2023, at the Hidalgo Port of Entry after registering through the CBP One program. He was issued a Notice to Appear and released into the United States on parole in 2023. Petitioner filed applications for asylum and Temporary Protected Status, removal proceedings were terminated, and he was issued an employment authorization document. On October 21, 2026, ICE agents confronted Petitioner at his apartment complex parking lot, detained him, and transported him to the Otay Mesa Detention Center, where he remained detained. No pre-deprivation hearing was held prior to his re-detention, and he was not given a bond hearing. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 27, 2026, requesting the Court assume jurisdiction, grant the petition, and order his immediate release.
In response, Respondents stated that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but acknowledged that the Court's prior decisions would control the result if the Court adhered to them, and therefore the government did not oppose the petition and deferred to the Court on appropriate relief. Respondents argued the Court need not address due process arguments because it could order a bond hearing as an alternative ground for disposition, citing Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder. The Court found that a due process analysis was necessary in this case.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Petitioner was entitled to due process, including written notice, the reasons for the termination, and an opportunity to contest the determination, prior to termination of his parole, citing Noori v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-1824-GPC-MSB, 2025 WL 2800149, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025). The court found that Petitioner was provided no individualized determination and no opportunity to be heard before he was detained. Accordingly, the court concluded that Petitioner's revocation of parole and detention violated his Due Process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondents were ordered to immediately release Petitioner under the previously determined conditions. Respondents are enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner without complying with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the matter.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to a noncitizen detained by ICE after his parole was revoked without a pre-deprivation hearing or bond hearing.
- The government did not oppose the petition, acknowledging that the court's prior decisions in similar cases controlled the outcome.
- The court rejected the government's argument that it could avoid a due process analysis by ordering a bond hearing as an alternative ground for disposition, finding that a due process analysis was necessary.
- The court held that the revocation of parole and subsequent detention without an individualized determination and opportunity to be heard violated the petitioner's Fifth Amendment due process rights.
- The court ordered immediate release under previously determined conditions and enjoined re-detention without compliance with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces due process protections for noncitizens who have been granted parole and subsequently re-detained by ICE. The court's refusal to bypass constitutional analysis in favor of a statutory bond hearing remedy underscores the importance of procedural safeguards before the government can deprive a person of liberty. The ruling aligns with prior decisions in the Southern District of California holding that parole revocation requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, and it contributes to a developing body of case law limiting ICE's authority to re-detain individuals without complying with regulatory and constitutional requirements.