Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Daniel Jose Abreu Bravo, a Venezuelan citizen, entered the United States in June 2024 under a humanitarian parole program for Venezuelan nationals. He applied for asylum within one year of entry, obtained a work permit in January 2026, and received a Florida driver's license in June 2026. In July 2026, Florida police arrested him on charges including aggravated assault and domestic battery, but the State Attorney declined to prosecute. The day after the arrest, ICE placed an immigration detainer on him and initiated removal proceedings, taking him into custody on August 6, 2026.
Abreu Bravo filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 8, 2026, arguing that his detention without a custody hearing violated due process. The government maintained that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) governed his detention but conceded that under recent Ninth Circuit precedent in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, he was entitled to a custody redetermination hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Despite this concession, no one had allowed him to request a bond hearing during his more than two months in custody at Central Valley Annex.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney first determined that § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Abreu Bravo's detention because he was apprehended in the interior of the United States after living in the country for over two years. The court found that he has a protected liberty interest in his continued release, having been granted humanitarian parole, applied for asylum as contemplated by the parole program, and lived and worked lawfully in the United States for over two years. The record contained no evidence that his parole had expired or that his asylum application had been denied.
Applying the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the magistrate judge concluded that due process required a pre-deprivation hearing before ICE could detain him. His private liberty interest was strong, the risk of erroneous deprivation was high because the government had previously determined he posed no danger or flight risk when granting parole, and the government had not articulated any changed circumstances justifying detention. The court emphasized that a post-deprivation bond hearing would improperly place the burden on Abreu Bravo rather than requiring the government to justify the deprivation of his acquired liberty interest. The magistrate judge recommended granting the habeas petition, ordering immediate release, and enjoining re-detention absent a pre-deprivation hearing where the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a danger or flight risk. The recommendation expressly does not address detention upon an executable final order of removal and recommends directing the Clerk to serve any release order on Central Valley Annex and to enter judgment and close the case if adopted.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens granted humanitarian parole who live and work lawfully in the United States for an extended period acquire a protected liberty interest in their continued release, even if they later fall out of status.
- When the government has previously determined that a noncitizen poses no danger or flight risk by granting parole, due process requires a pre-deprivation hearing before re-detention, with the government bearing the burden of proof.
- A post-deprivation bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is constitutionally inadequate when it places the burden on the detainee to justify release rather than requiring the government to justify the deprivation of an acquired liberty interest.
- The recommended habeas remedy for a due process violation in immigration detention is immediate release to restore the petitioner to the status quo that existed before the constitutional violation.
- The recommendation leaves open the circumstances for detention after an executable final order of removal and is submitted to the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with a shortened seven-day objection period.
Why It Matters
This recommendation adds to a growing body of district court decisions within the Ninth Circuit holding that noncitizens who entered the United States lawfully, including through humanitarian parole programs, acquire due process protections that prevent the government from detaining them without a pre-deprivation hearing. The decision emphasizes that when the government has already determined a noncitizen poses no danger or flight risk, it cannot simply reverse course and detain that person without explaining changed circumstances and providing an opportunity for a neutral adjudicator to assess the need for detention.
The recommendation also highlights the constitutional inadequacy of relying solely on post-deprivation bond hearings where the detainee bears the burden of proof. By recommending immediate release and requiring the government to justify any future detention by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation hearing, the court underscores that habeas relief should restore petitioners to the position they would have occupied had the constitutional violation never occurred.