Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Celet Elius, a native and citizen of Haiti, was processed by the Department of Homeland Security and paroled into the United States on January 6, 2024. Although DHS initiated removal proceedings against him, an Immigration Judge terminated those proceedings on June 27, 2024. Elius continued residing in the United States following his release until ICE agents arrested him on October 23, 2026, in the parking lot of a Home Depot in Escondido, California.
Elius alleged that ICE agents did not provide any written notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard before taking him into custody. On October 29, 2026, he filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that Respondents violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedures Act by revoking his parole without any written notice or meaningful opportunity to be heard. Respondents filed a Response and Elius filed a Traverse.
The Court’s Holding
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Elius's petition and ordered his immediate release. The court found that because Elius was previously released from immigration custody on parole, he held a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, and the Due Process Clause required procedural protections before he could be deprived of that interest. Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court concluded that all factors supported a finding that the revocation of Elius's parole without notice or an opportunity to be heard violated his due process rights.
First, the court emphasized that Elius had a significant liberty interest in remaining out of custody, noting that freedom from detention is a fundamental part of due process protection. Second, the court found the risk of an erroneous deprivation was high because Elius's parole was revoked without providing him a reason or an opportunity to be heard, and Respondents had not produced any valid argument or evidence that the initial findings—that he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community—had changed. Third, the court determined the government's interest in detaining Elius without notice, reasoning, and a hearing was low, and there was no indication that providing proper procedures would be fiscally or administratively burdensome.
Because the court found the Fifth Amendment claim meritorious and sufficient to justify release, it declined to reach Elius's APA claims, though it noted that other courts have found APA violations in similar circumstances. The court ordered Respondents to immediately release Elius from custody subject only to the conditions of his preexisting parole, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Petitioner's favor and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens who have been released from immigration custody on parole have a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- The government cannot revoke parole and re-detain a noncitizen without providing notice and a pre-deprivation hearing, absent a change in circumstances such as evidence that the individual has become a flight risk or a danger to the community.
- Courts apply the three-factor Mathews v. Eldridge test to determine what procedural protections are constitutionally required before depriving a noncitizen of the liberty interest created by release on parole.
- When the government revokes parole without any notice, reasoning, or hearing, all three Mathews factors typically weigh in favor of finding a due process violation.
- The appropriate remedy for unlawful detention resulting from a due process violation in the parole revocation context is immediate release from custody subject only to the conditions of the preexisting parole.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the growing body of case law holding that immigration authorities cannot arbitrarily re-detain noncitizens who have been released on parole without providing basic procedural protections. The ruling emphasizes that an initial release from ICE custody creates an implicit promise that liberty will be revoked only if the individual fails to comply with conditions of release, and reflects a government determination that the person is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
The case is part of a pattern of similar rulings in the Southern District of California and other federal courts rejecting the government's practice of revoking parole without notice or hearings. By granting habeas relief and ordering immediate release, the court affirmed that due process protections apply robustly to immigration detention decisions and that the writ of habeas corpus remains a vital tool for challenging unlawful executive detention.