Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Abdulrahman Ahmed Ali Al-Marzooh, a native and citizen of Yemen, entered the United States in May 2021. Customs and Border Protection charged him with an immigration misdemeanor; he was convicted on February 18, 2022, and sentenced to ten months' incarceration. Upon his release on April 1, 2022, immigration authorities granted him parole, and he later obtained employment authorization and temporary protected status. On May 20, 2026, he received a negative credible fear determination, but an immigration judge overturned that finding on July 13, 2026. He was arrested during a targeted enforcement operation in Newark, New Jersey, on August 26, 2026, and issued a Notice to Appear placing him in regular removal proceedings under INA Section 240. While in ICE custody at the Central Valley Annex in McFarland, California, he filed a § 2241 habeas petition on October 2, 2026.
Respondents argued that his detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and that Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), did not apply because Petitioner was inspected at the border, whereas the Rodriguez Vazquez petitioners were arrested in the interior without prior inspection. Respondents acknowledged, however, that this case fits the category in which the court has found a petitioner's previous parole more significant than the manner of entry. The magistrate judge framed the issue as a procedural due process question arising from Petitioner's rearrest after years of parole: release under § 1226 reflects a government determination that the noncitizen is not a danger or flight risk, and Respondents did not dispute that Petitioner had missed no immigration appointments since parole and has family ties in the United States.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge concluded that Petitioner is in regular, not expedited, removal proceedings under INA Section 240, so his detention is discretionary under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not mandatory under § 1225(b). Respondents' reliance on the manner of entry was therefore misplaced. The court held that Petitioner maintains a protected liberty interest in release under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, consistent with Alberto R.C. v. Murray, 817 F. Supp. 3d 917 (E.D. Cal. 2025), Garcia v. Chestnut, 2025 WL 3771348 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025), and Espinoza v. Kaiser, 2025 WL 2581185 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025). Applying Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the court found that a noncitizen previously released and re-detained a substantial time later without materially changed circumstances implicating flight or danger is entitled to habeas relief requiring immediate release.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that: (1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted; (2) Respondents immediately release Petitioner and be enjoined from re-detaining him unless the government gives at least seven days' advance notice and holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter under § 1226(a), at which the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger; and (3) the Clerk enter judgment for Petitioner and close the case. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned District Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with a seven-day objection period.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen paroled after inspection at the border and later placed in regular INA § 240 removal proceedings is subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not mandatory detention under § 1225(b), regardless of the manner of initial entry.
- Prior parole release reflects a government determination that the noncitizen is not a danger or flight risk; re-detention years later without any showing of materially changed circumstances violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
- Under Mathews v. Eldridge, habeas relief is warranted where the private liberty interest is strong, the risk of erroneous deprivation is high, and the government offers no countervailing justification for continued detention.
- The recommended remedy includes immediate release plus an injunction requiring seven days' notice and a bond hearing with a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard before any future re-detention.
- The seven-day objection period is shortened from the local rule because of the nature of the harm, the constitutional violation found, and the extensive briefing already completed.
Why It Matters
This recommendation reinforces a line of Eastern District of California rulings holding that prolonged parole compliance creates a protected liberty interest that cannot be extinguished by re-detention without individualized justification. It clarifies that Rodriguez Vazquez is not limited to noncitizens who entered without inspection but also reaches inspected entrants later placed in regular removal proceedings.
The recommended safeguards—advance notice, a neutral arbiter, and a heightened evidentiary burden on the government—provide a procedural framework that may influence future immigration detention practice in the district and the Ninth Circuit.