Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Dicson Jose Bello Toro fled Venezuela and entered the United States in January 2024, where he was briefly detained by ICE before being paroled into the country under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). In granting parole, the Department of Homeland Security necessarily found that he presented neither a security risk nor a risk of absconding. After his release, he applied for asylum and lived freely in the United States.
In April 2026, ICE officers detained him following his release from county jail, where he had recently pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge for driving while intoxicated. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that his re-detention violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Respondents opposed relief, arguing that he could be mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), though they did not specify whether subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) applied.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the petitioner had a clear liberty interest in his continued freedom following his release from DHS custody on parole, citing a prior decision recognizing a protected liberty interest after a grant of humanitarian parole. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, the court found that he had a substantial private interest in maintaining his out-of-custody status, that the risk of erroneous deprivation without a hearing was considerable, and that the government's interest in detention was low because the effort and cost of providing procedural safeguards were minimal.
The court rejected the government's mandatory-detention argument, explaining that regardless of which detention authority applied, the petitioner's liberty interest remained protected by the Due Process Clause because DHS had previously determined he was eligible for parole. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that noncitizens found away from the border well after arrival are protected from arbitrary detention. Because the petitioner received no notice of the reason for his re-detention and no opportunity to challenge it, his due process rights were violated. The court also deemed waived any argument based on the misdemeanor conviction because respondents attached documents about it but did not explain its legal or factual significance.
The court granted the petition, ordered the petitioner's immediate release, and permanently enjoined respondents from re-arresting or re-detaining him absent constitutional protections, including, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice describing the change of circumstances necessitating arrest and detention and a timely hearing. At any such hearing, the government must bear the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and the petitioner may have counsel present. The order expressly did not address the circumstances under which respondents may re-detain him if he becomes subject to a final order of removal. The clerk was directed to close the case and enter judgment for the petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen released on immigration parole has a protected liberty interest in remaining free, and re-detention without notice or a hearing violates Fifth Amendment due process.
- The Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test favors procedural safeguards for paroled detainees because their private interest in liberty is substantial, the risk of erroneous deprivation is considerable, and the government's burden in providing process is minimal.
- The government's invocation of mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) does not eliminate due process protections for a parolee, particularly when the government fails to specify which subsection applies.
- Arguments supported only by attached records, without any explanation of their legal or factual significance, may be deemed waived.
- Any future re-detention of this petitioner requires pre-deprivation notice, a timely hearing at which the government must prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, and the right to counsel.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to a growing body of district court orders within the Ninth Circuit holding that immigration detainees released on parole cannot be summarily re-detained without due process. It applies Ninth Circuit precedent protecting noncitizens found away from the border well after arrival from arbitrary detention.
The order is also notable for the specific procedural floor it sets for any future re-detention: pre-deprivation notice, a timely hearing, a clear-and-convincing burden on the government, and access to counsel, while expressly leaving open what process would apply if the petitioner becomes subject to a final order of removal.