Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joh Jaxeht Alfonso Diaz Duran, a Venezuelan citizen, entered the United States at the Paso del Norte port of entry in Texas on October 1, 2022. Officials issued a Notice to Appear charging him as inadmissible for lacking a valid entry document and granted him humanitarian parole. He has approved employment authorization and a pending asylum and withholding application.
On August 27, 2026, ICE agents encountered him at a Florida county jail after he was arrested under the state's Basic Ordering Agreement program, which the court described as an apparent partnership between Florida sheriffs and ICE. His petition alleges that officers arrested him at home on August 26. He requested and then withdrew a custody redetermination, and on September 14 an immigration judge denied bond because he was no longer within the Orlando Immigration Court's jurisdiction. He is now held at the California City Detention Center.
He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition on October 2, 2026, alleging under Count One that his arrest without a pre-deprivation hearing violated Fifth Amendment due process. Respondent's one-paragraph response maintained that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) governs but acknowledged that Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), holds that § 1226(a) governs his detention.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommends granting the petition on Count One. The court observed that Petitioner appeared subject to § 1225(b) because of his 2022 border inspection and humanitarian parole. It noted that Respondent identified no changed circumstances or other basis for the August 2026 arrest, and that his only criminal history was a dismissed December 2023 forgery and shoplifting arrest. Respondent's response offered no argument on the due process claim.
Relying on earlier orders by the assigned District Judge in Selis Tinoco, Labrador-Prato, D.L.C. v. Wofford, and Altin v. Chestnut, the magistrate judge found that Petitioner acquired a protected liberty interest from his parole release and was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter. Because Respondent identified no exigent circumstances or other basis to limit the remedy, the court recommended immediate release. The analysis is brief and applies those authorities rather than conducting a new balancing.
The recommended relief includes release with return of documents and possessions, and a compliance notice within three days of any final release order. If the government seeks to re-detain him, it must give at least seven days' notice and a bond hearing before an immigration judge, where it must prove flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence. The final order would not address detention if he becomes subject to an executable final removal order with notice. The Clerk would serve any release order on the facility, enter judgment for Petitioner, and close the case; remaining petition claims are not addressed. Objections are due within three days of service.
Key Takeaways
- This is a recommendation to the district judge, not a release order, so relief depends on adoption after the shortened three-day objection period.
- The court treated humanitarian parole as creating a protected liberty interest that requires a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral arbiter absent exigent circumstances.
- The government's brief response identified no changed circumstances or exigency and offered no due process argument, leaving nothing to justify the arrest.
- Any future re-detention would require seven days' notice and an immigration judge hearing at which the government bears a clear and convincing burden.
- Detention after an executable final removal order, and any other claims in the petition, were left unaddressed.
Why It Matters
The findings show how judges in this district are applying earlier due process rulings to paroled noncitizens who are arrested again, here through a Florida state-federal arrangement. As a magistrate judge's recommendation resting largely on citation to other district orders, it carries no precedential weight.
Its practical importance lies in the proposed combination of immediate release with a defined process for any re-detention. The outcome remains subject to objections and the district judge's decision, and the court did not resolve the broader § 1225(b) versus § 1226(a) question beyond noting the parties' positions.