Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cristian Ferney Torres Polanco, a citizen of Columbia, entered the United States on or about December 26, 2022, and was paroled into the country by immigration officials two days later. In late July 2026, following an arrest by the Utah Highway Patrol, immigration authorities re-detained him, and he remained in custody from that point forward. He filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 5, 2026, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion for a temporary restraining order, and a motion for appointment of counsel.
The respondent warden filed a response opposing the TRO motion but stated no objection to the court ruling on the underlying habeas petition based on the existing briefing. The respondent argued that Polanco's detention was mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court noted that there was no evidence before it indicating that Polanco had been provided with advance notice or a pre-detention hearing before immigration authorities took him back into custody.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition, concluding that Polanco's re-detention violated due process. It relied on the reasoning in Chavarria v. Chestnut, a prior decision from the same district holding that re-detaining a noncitizen who had previously been paroled into the United States, without notice or a pre-detention hearing, violated due process. Applying that reasoning, the court ordered Polanco's immediate release from custody on the conditions, if any, he was subject to prior to his current detention.
The court also enjoined and restrained the respondent from re-detaining Polanco for any purpose, absent exigent circumstances, without first providing him notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before an immigration judge. At any such hearing, the respondent would bear the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Polanco is a flight risk or poses a danger to the community. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denied the TRO and counsel motions as moot in light of the habeas relief granted, directed the Clerk to serve a copy of the order on the warden of the Central Valley Annex, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the petitioner and close the case.
Key Takeaways
- Re-detaining a noncitizen who was previously paroled into the United States, without advance notice or a pre-detention hearing, violates due process under the reasoning adopted by this court.
- The government bears the burden at any future pre-deprivation hearing of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a flight risk or a danger to the community before re-detention is permitted.
- A respondent's argument that detention is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) does not eliminate the constitutional requirement of notice and a hearing before re-detaining a paroled noncitizen.
- Once habeas relief is granted ordering release, related motions for a temporary restraining order and appointment of counsel may be denied as moot.
- The court was willing to rule on the merits of the habeas petition on the existing briefing when the respondent expressed no objection to that procedure.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces a developing line of authority in the Eastern District of California holding that due process protections attach when immigration authorities seek to re-detain individuals who were previously paroled into the United States. By following Chavarria v. Chestnut, the court signaled that the constitutional analysis applied in that case extends to similarly situated detainees, requiring procedural safeguards before the government may revoke parole and re-detain.
The order is also notable for the specific injunctive relief granted: not only was the petitioner ordered released, but the respondent was barred from re-detaining him without notice, a hearing before an immigration judge, and a heightened burden of proof. This remedy underscores the court's view that the due process violation warranted forward-looking protection, not merely release from the current unlawful detention.