Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jecsan Enoc Soza Gutierrez filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 2, 2026, challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He also sought a temporary restraining order, permission to proceed in forma pauperis, and appointed counsel. The court later set a briefing schedule on the restraining-order request and directed the warden to address whether anything distinguished this case from several earlier decisions. It also asked the government to identify any opposition to deciding the habeas petition on the existing briefing.
The warden opposed the pending motion and maintained that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(b)(2)(A) governed the detention, while acknowledging that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock made § 1226(a) applicable. The government did not object to a merits ruling on the present submissions. The court therefore proceeded without treating the unresolved statutory-parole question as a reason to delay relief.
Based on the briefing, the court found that Soza Gutierrez entered the United States in January 2022, was briefly detained by immigration authorities, and was paroled into the country. ICE re-detained him during a Florida traffic stop on or about August 10, 2026. The court found no indication that he received notice or a hearing before that re-detention.
The Court’s Holding
The court acknowledged uncertainty over whether the original parole occurred under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or § 1182(d)(5), but held that the distinction did not change the result. Because Soza Gutierrez had previously been released into the United States, he had a liberty interest in continued freedom from immigration detention under either statutory route. Re-detaining him without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process and entitled him to release.
The operative order required the warden to release Soza Gutierrez immediately under the same conditions, if any, that applied before his August 2026 re-detention. It also enjoined renewed detention for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, unless he first receives notice and a hearing before an immigration judge. At that hearing, the government must establish danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
The court denied the temporary-restraining-order and counsel motions as moot because the habeas grant supplied the requested release-related relief. It granted in forma pauperis status, directed service of the order on the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility, and instructed the Clerk to enter judgment for the petitioner and close the case. The order did not resolve which parole statute originally applied, because its due-process holding made that determination unnecessary.
Key Takeaways
- Prior release on parole gave the petitioner a liberty interest in remaining free from immigration detention regardless of which of two parole provisions applied.
- ICE's re-detention without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process and supported habeas relief.
- The court ordered immediate release under the petitioner's prior conditions rather than merely requiring further proceedings.
- Any future detention absent exigent circumstances requires notice and an immigration-judge hearing where the government bears a clear-and-convincing burden on danger or flight risk.
- The requests for a temporary restraining order and appointed counsel were denied as moot after the court granted the habeas petition.
Why It Matters
The decision applies a liberty-interest analysis to immigration re-detention and avoids making relief depend on resolving the petitioner's precise original parole authority. Its practical remedy combines immediate release with specific procedural limits on any later detention, including placement of the burden on the government at a hearing before an immigration judge.
The ruling also shows the court deciding the habeas merits on the existing briefing after the government did not oppose that course. Although the order relies on earlier district decisions addressing similar re-detentions, its holding is tied to the undisputed prior parole, the absence of notice or a hearing, and the circumstances of this petitioner's renewed custody.