Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Fidel Jorge Ramos Gregorio, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor without inspection on December 8, 2022. He was taken into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement and released to the care of his uncle on February 11, 2023, when he was 16 years old. He remained at liberty for more than three and a half years while removal proceedings were initiated against him and remained pending before the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
On September 16, 2026, Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence and taken to the San Diego Central Jail, though no charge was ultimately filed. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers learned of the arrest through a database search and took him into custody in the jail lobby as he was being released. The government provided no prior notice or opportunity to be heard and identified no changed circumstances justifying the revocation of his release.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his re-detention without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process. Respondents acknowledged that Petitioner was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and did not oppose an order directing a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), but urged the court not to reach the due process argument.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that Petitioner's re-detention without notice violated due process and that only immediate release afforded relief because Petitioner was entitled to process before the revocation of his prior release. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and this protection applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.
The court found that Petitioner had a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody. Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the government's discretion, the government's decision to release an individual from custody creates an implicit promise that liberty will be revoked only if the individual fails to live up to the conditions of release. Petitioner had been out of custody since 2023, when the government implicitly determined he was not a danger to the community or a flight risk.
Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found that all three supported a determination that the government's re-detention of Petitioner without notification, reasoning, or an opportunity to be heard denied him due process. First, Petitioner had a significant liberty interest in remaining out of custody. Second, the risk of erroneous deprivation was high because Respondents revoked his release without notification, reasoning, or a hearing, and there was no evidence that the findings underlying his 2023 release had changed. Third, the government's interest in detaining Petitioner without notice, reasoning, and a hearing was low.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus on due process grounds and ordered Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody subject to the conditions of his preexisting parole.
- Prior to any re-detention, the court ordered that Petitioner is entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation of his parole and a hearing before a neutral decision maker to determine whether detention is warranted.
- The government bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight.
- The court ordered the parties to file a Joint Status Report by October 23, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the file.
- Petitioner's counsel may submit an appropriate Equal Access to Justice Act fee application within 30 days of the issuance of the order.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that noncitizens released from immigration custody acquire a protected liberty interest in remaining at liberty, and the government cannot revoke that release without providing notice and a hearing. The ruling emphasizes that due process protections apply regardless of the length of time a person has been present in the United States and that the government must present evidence of materially changed circumstances to justify re-detention.
The decision also clarifies that when due process violations occur in the revocation of release, immediate release subject to preexisting conditions is the appropriate remedy, not merely a post-deprivation bond hearing. The requirement that the government prove dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence places a significant burden on authorities seeking to re-detain individuals who have been living in the community for extended periods.