Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ernesto Bautista Baluyot Jr., a native of the Philippines, entered the United States on a temporary visitor visa on December 15, 2024, and later filed an affirmative asylum application. He received a Notice to Appear and was placed in removal proceedings on July 31, 2025, for overstaying his visa. Supplemental materials indicated that he was released under the Alternatives to Detention program while those proceedings were pending, although the court noted uncertainty about whether he had been detained before that release.
A criminal complaint filed on July 14, 2026, concerning events in Yosemite National Park charged Baluyot with operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol and possession of a controlled substance. On July 17, 2026, ICE detained him at an Intensive Supervision Appearance Program check-in. He then sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the detention violated due process rights connected to his asylum application. After an order to show cause, a return and traverse, and joint supplemental briefing, the court granted the amended petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the factual premise of the government’s argument that Baluyot’s July 2026 apprehension was his first DHS apprehension and therefore involved no revocation of a prior release. The supplemental record showed that he had previously been placed in removal proceedings and released under ATD. The court therefore analyzed his claim as a challenge to re-detention following supervised release, rather than as an initial custody determination. It explained that due process protects persons within the United States regardless of immigration status and that freedom from physical detention is central to the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Relying on decisions addressing parole, conditional release, and ATD, the court concluded that Baluyot had a protected liberty interest. It emphasized that ATD participants are released under supervision and are not considered threats to public safety or national security. The court also reasoned that the protected interest was at full force because no violation of his ATD conditions had been alleged. Once that interest was established, revocation of his liberty required notice and an opportunity to be heard before re-detention.
The court twice asked the parties to identify the conditions of Baluyot’s ATD release, including what conduct would violate his parole. Their final response stated that, despite their best efforts, they could not provide additional information listing all release conditions. Without that information, the court could not find that the government had established a condition violation or provided notice and an opportunity to address the alleged violation, flight risk, or dangerousness before revoking his liberty. It therefore found a procedural due process violation, granted habeas relief on that ground, ordered immediate release subject to any preexisting release conditions, and required a joint status report confirming release by November 12, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Release under ATD can create a protected liberty interest even though the noncitizen remains in removal proceedings.
- The court treated re-detention after supervised release differently from an initial DHS apprehension because the earlier release had to be considered in the due process analysis.
- The absence of alleged ATD condition violations strengthened Baluyot’s claim to continued liberty, but the decision rested on procedural due process rather than a determination of his asylum claim.
- The government’s inability to supply the release conditions prevented the court from finding that Baluyot received constitutionally sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard before re-detention.
- The judgment required immediate release under any conditions that existed when he was re-detained and a joint status report confirming compliance.
Why It Matters
The decision applies established procedural due process principles to immigration re-detention following ATD release. Its central point is evidentiary and procedural: when the government revokes an existing liberty interest, it must be able to show the governing release conditions and provide meaningful notice and an opportunity to respond. The court did not adjudicate the criminal charges, decide whether Baluyot qualified for asylum, or end his removal proceedings.
The relief was correspondingly limited to restoring the prior release arrangement. Baluyot’s immediate release remains subject to whatever conditions governed his release before the July 2026 detention, and the joint status report was intended to confirm that the court’s release order had been carried out.