Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Anner Misael Salgado Peralta, a citizen of Honduras, entered the United States in May 2017 as an unaccompanied juvenile seeking asylum. He was released from Department of Homeland Security custody on parole while his asylum case remained pending, and his immigration case was administratively closed in December 2021 based on in-court prosecutorial discretion. On August 25, 2026, he drove through an immigration checkpoint, was arrested by ICE officers, and was taken to the Otay Mesa Detention Center, where he remained detained.
Salgado Peralta filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 7, 2026. He alleged that no pre-deprivation hearing preceded his re-detention and that he had not received a bond hearing. He asked the court to assume jurisdiction, grant the petition, and order his immediate release. His claims rested on the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Respondents maintained that he was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), while acknowledging that he had previously been released on conditional parole under that provision. They said counsel had no further information about the arrest warrant or arrest and did not oppose an order directing a bond hearing. They also urged the court to avoid the constitutional issue by disposing of the case through a bond-hearing order, but the court expressly found that a due-process analysis was necessary.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that § 2241 authorizes habeas relief for noncitizens held in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It then held that Salgado Peralta was entitled to due process before termination of his parole, including written notice, the reasons for termination, and an opportunity to contest that determination. The court relied on Noori v. LaRose for that procedural framework.
The parties did not dispute that Salgado Peralta received no individualized determination and no opportunity to be heard before he was detained. On that record, the court found that the revocation of his parole and his detention violated his due-process rights. Its constitutional ruling therefore went beyond respondents' proposed alternative of simply directing a bond hearing under § 1226(a).
The court granted the habeas petition and ordered respondents to release Salgado Peralta immediately under the previously determined conditions. It also enjoined respondents from re-detaining him without complying with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the matter. The order did not separately resolve the Administrative Procedure Act claim or order a bond hearing as the requested remedy.
Key Takeaways
- The court held that terminating immigration parole required written notice, reasons for the termination, and an opportunity to contest the decision.
- It rejected respondents' invitation to avoid the constitutional question merely by ordering a bond hearing.
- The undisputed absence of an individualized determination or pre-detention opportunity to be heard established a due-process violation.
- The granted relief was immediate release under the previously determined conditions, not simply a future bond hearing.
- Any re-detention must comply with both 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 and due process.
Why It Matters
The decision treats procedural protections at parole revocation as central to the legality of renewed immigration detention, rather than viewing a later bond hearing as an adequate substitute for addressing the claimed constitutional violation. Respondents' nonopposition to a bond hearing therefore did not determine the scope of the ruling or relief.
The injunction is tied to the circumstances of this parole revocation and detention: it bars re-detention without regulatory and due-process compliance. The order does not announce a general rule resolving every detention under § 1226(a), and it leaves the petition's Administrative Procedure Act contention without a separate discussion.