Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dieunoufait Bien-Aise, a Haitian citizen, arrived in the United States on July 17, 2023, and was released into the country on immigration parole. Over the following three years, he remained physically at liberty, complied with the conditions of his release, and obtained employment authorization valid through 2029. There was no indication that he violated any terms of his release during this period.
On October 3, 2026, Petitioner was taken into immigration custody without notice or a hearing. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his re-detention violated his right to due process because Respondents took him into custody without notice and without identifying any changed circumstances that would justify revoking his release. Respondents acknowledged that Petitioner had previously been released on parole and did not oppose the petition.
The petition also raised a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, but the court noted it need not reach that claim because the petition could be resolved on due process grounds. The court observed that other courts have found APA violations in similar circumstances where parole was revoked without stated reasons or an individualized determination.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Petitioner had a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody. Relying on Fifth Amendment due process principles and Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that 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. Because Petitioner had been out of custody since 2023, had complied with all conditions, and there was no suggestion of changed circumstances, he retained a protected liberty interest in his continued freedom.
Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that all factors supported a due process violation. First, Petitioner's private interest in freedom from government custody was significant. 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 government's initial determination—that he was not a danger or flight risk—had changed. Third, the government's interest in detaining Petitioner without procedural safeguards was low.
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered Respondents to immediately release Petitioner subject to the conditions of his preexisting release. The court further ordered that before any future re-detention, Petitioner is entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation and a hearing before a neutral decision maker, with the government bearing the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a danger or flight risk. The parties were ordered to file a Joint Status Report by October 29, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released, and Petitioner's counsel was permitted to submit an application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act within 30 days.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens released on immigration parole have a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, and the government cannot revoke that release without due process protections.
- The Due Process Clause requires notice, a statement of reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision maker before the government may re-detain a parolee who has complied with release conditions.
- Under the Mathews v. Eldridge framework, the government's interest in detaining a compliant parolee without procedural safeguards is low, while the individual's liberty interest and the risk of erroneous deprivation are both high.
- Courts may grant habeas corpus relief and order immediate release when immigration officials revoke parole without providing constitutionally sufficient process.
- Prevailing petitioners in immigration habeas cases may seek attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the principle that immigration parole creates a constitutionally protected liberty interest that cannot be revoked arbitrarily. It adds to a growing body of case law holding that due process requires meaningful procedural protections—including notice, an explanation, and a hearing—before the government may re-detain noncitizens who have been living in the community under grants of parole.
The ruling also clarifies the government's burden in any future re-detention proceedings: it must present clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness or flight risk. By ordering immediate release and establishing procedural requirements for any future detention, the court provided a remedy that goes beyond mere declaratory relief and ensures that Petitioner's liberty interest is protected going forward.