Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Carl Henry Obin, a citizen of Haiti, received humanitarian parole into the United States on November 24, 2023. According to the order, he also received Temporary Protected Status and work authorization, was released while applying for asylum, complied with Immigration and Customs Enforcement requirements, timely filed his asylum petition, worked for DoorDash, and had no criminal history. After TPS for Haitian refugees expired on March 3, 2026, ICE re-detained Obin on July 6, 2026. The court stated that this occurred without notice or an opportunity to be heard and without changed circumstances concerning his flight risk or danger to the community.
Obin filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that he was improperly detained after having been paroled into the country and seeking immediate release while his asylum claim was litigated. The government filed a return stating that, based on the court's past decisions, it did not oppose the petition; it deferred to the court regarding appropriate relief. Obin then filed a traverse. The court explained that habeas is available to individuals detained within the United States, traditionally functions to secure release from illegal custody, and extends to noncitizens detained domestically. Because Obin was in custody and sought release, the court found that he had standing to pursue the amended petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Obin's re-detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard, and without noticeably changed circumstances regarding danger or flight risk, violated his due-process rights. It reasoned that people released from custody, even conditionally, have a liberty interest in continued liberty, drawing on decisions concerning parolees, pre-parolees, and probationers. The court agreed with Saravia v. Sessions that federal agents may not rearrest a released noncitizen merely because removal proceedings are pending. Instead, they must be able to present evidence of materially changed circumstances, such as actual dangerousness, a new flight risk, or a final removal order. If the noncitizen disputes the asserted justification, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an immigration judge.
The court also cited Kamalpreet v. Singh for the principle that a government decision to release someone creates an implicit promise that liberty will be revoked only if the person fails to satisfy the conditions of release. Applying those principles, the court emphasized that ICE had released Obin on November 24, 2023, after finding that he was neither a flight risk nor a community danger, and that no evidence showed those circumstances had changed. Obin therefore was entitled to remain released on his original conditions. The court granted the amended petition, ordered his release on the same terms and conditions as that earlier release, and directed the clerk to close the case. It added that if ICE believes circumstances have changed, it must notify Obin of those changes and promptly provide him an opportunity to be heard before an immigration judge.
Key Takeaways
- The court held that ICE's re-detention of Obin without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or materially changed circumstances violated due process.
- A noncitizen's conditional release can create a protected liberty interest in continued liberty rather than leaving rearrest entirely to government discretion.
- The government's return did not oppose Obin's petition, but it deferred to the court on the appropriate relief instead of proposing a particular disposition.
- If ICE asserts changed circumstances in the future, it must give Obin notice and a prompt opportunity to be heard before an immigration judge.
- The court ordered Obin released on the same terms and conditions as his November 24, 2023 release and directed that the case be closed.
Why It Matters
The decision applies established liberty-interest principles to a noncitizen who had been paroled and released while pursuing asylum. Its central distinction is between an initial detention decision and a later rearrest: once the government has released someone after assessing danger and flight risk, the court requires evidence of materially changed circumstances and procedural protections before renewed detention. The order also identifies a final removal order as another circumstance that can support rearrest under the authority it quoted.
The relief was tailored to restoring Obin's prior release conditions rather than resolving his asylum application or barring every future immigration enforcement action. The court expressly left ICE able to act on changed circumstances, provided it supplies notice and a prompt hearing before an immigration judge. The ruling therefore addresses the process and justification required for re-detention, not the ultimate merits of Obin's asylum claim.