Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ernet Roudy Florent, a citizen of Haiti, entered the United States on or about June 29, 2023. He was processed by DHS and released the same day on parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). According to the petition and the government's response, he then lived in the country continuously, was granted Temporary Protected Status, applied for asylum, and had his removal proceedings dismissed. The court recited these facts from the filings and made no findings after an evidentiary hearing.
On July 27, 2026, Florent pleaded guilty to driving under the influence. He was sentenced to a three-month first-conviction program and one year of unsupervised probation. On September 21, 2026, ICE officers detained him in an encounter that the petition describes as unrelated to the criminal matter. He then petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Center and other respondents. He argued that his detention violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Respondents argued that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vasquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), does not apply to noncitizens previously released on parole. They nonetheless conceded that the court's prior decisions would control the result. They stated that they did not oppose the petition and deferred to the court on the appropriate relief.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro granted the petition. She relied on respondents' non-opposition and on the court's many earlier orders granting similar petitions, which the order cites by case number. The order contains no extended analysis of the APA or due process claims. It also does not resolve whether Rodriguez Vasquez reaches previously paroled noncitizens, because respondents conceded that the court's own prior decisions control.
On remedy, the court found that immediate release, rather than a bond hearing, was appropriate. It reasoned, citing district court decisions from other circuits and districts, that a post-detention bond hearing cannot prevent an erroneous deprivation of liberty that has already occurred. Respondents were ordered to release Florent immediately, subject to the conditions of his preexisting parole. Citing an earlier order of the same court, the judge added that, given his criminal charges after initial release, the government may impose other reasonable conditions of supervision.
The order also addresses any future re-detention. Before Florent may be detained again, he must receive a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether detention is warranted. At that hearing, Florent bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk, citing Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland. If the immigration judge decides bond is appropriate, the judge must consider alternative conditions of release and Florent's ability to pay, citing Hernandez v. Sessions.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted habeas relief because respondents did not oppose the petition and conceded that the court's prior decisions controlled. It did not issue a new merits analysis of the APA or due process claims.
- The remedy is immediate release rather than a bond hearing, because the court viewed a post-detention hearing as incapable of preventing an erroneous deprivation of liberty.
- Release is subject to the conditions of Florent's preexisting parole, and the government may add other reasonable supervision conditions in light of his later criminal charges.
- Any re-detention must be preceded by an immigration judge hearing at which Florent carries the burden of showing by a preponderance that he is not a danger or a flight risk.
- If the immigration judge finds bond appropriate, the judge must consider alternative release conditions and Florent's ability to pay.
Why It Matters
The order shows how the Southern District of California is handling habeas petitions from previously paroled noncitizens detained by ICE. Once the government concedes that the court's prior decisions control, the court can grant relief quickly and cite those decisions. Because it rests on non-opposition, the order is a district court ruling with limited persuasive value on the merits and is not binding on other courts. It does not decide whether Rodriguez Vasquez applies to paroled noncitizens.
The remedy is the more distinctive part of the order. The court chose immediate release over a bond hearing and set a pre-detention hearing requirement with a defined burden of proof and bond-setting considerations. The order leaves open what the immigration judge would decide at any future hearing, and it does not restrict the government's authority to impose reasonable supervision conditions. The ruling resolves only this petitioner's custody and does not address his underlying immigration status or any pending asylum or removal matters.