Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Gregory Maxime, a citizen of Haiti, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention as a violation of due process. Maxime entered the United States without inspection and was detained by the government on March 23, 2021. The next day, the Department of Homeland Security released him on his own recognizance. Over five years later, on October 9, 2026, Maxime was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and has since been detained without a bond hearing at the Otay Mesa Detention Center.
In its reasoning at Dkt. 6, the Court found that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (a)(5), and (b)(9) do not bar Maxime's collateral challenge to the constitutionality and legality of his current detention, and that Maxime is subject to the discretionary detention framework of § 1226, not § 1225(b)(2), because he was already residing in the United States at the time of his arrest. The Court further found that Respondents violated Maxime's Fifth Amendment due process rights by revoking his conditional parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) without an individualized determination concerning whether that revocation was warranted, applying the Mathews v. Eldridge framework.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered Respondents to release Petitioner Gregory Maxime by 5 p.m. on October 28, 2026. Respondents are required to file an affidavit attesting to Petitioner's release by 5 p.m. on the following business day. The Court enjoined Respondents from redetaining Petitioner during the pendency of his removal proceedings without first providing an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge.
At any such bond hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or such a flight risk that no amount of bond or alternative conditions of release would suffice to ensure his future appearance, citing Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017), and Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). The immigration judge must consider Petitioner's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release, and shall not deny bond on the basis that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) requires or authorizes mandatory detention, or that Board of Immigration Appeals precedent deprives the immigration judge of jurisdiction to decide bond. If requested, Respondents shall produce a transcript or transcription of the recorded bond hearing.
Respondents shall file a declaration attesting to full compliance with these obligations, and are enjoined from redetaining Petitioner until 48 hours after filing the declaration. The Court vacated the October 29, 2026 hearing and directed the Clerk of the Court to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- The Court ordered the immediate release of the petitioner by 5 p.m. on October 28, 2026, with a requirement for Respondents to file an affidavit confirming release by the following business day.
- Respondents are enjoined from redetaining the petitioner without a pre-deprivation individualized bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
- The immigration judge must consider the petitioner's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release, and cannot rely on mandatory detention statutes under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) or BIA precedent to deny bond jurisdiction.
- The Court required Respondents to file a declaration attesting to full compliance and enjoined redetention until 48 hours after that filing, then vacated the scheduled hearing and closed the case.
- The order relies on Ninth Circuit precedent (Hernandez v. Sessions and Singh v. Holder) and the due process framework of Mathews v. Eldridge to establish protections for detained noncitizens whose conditional parole was revoked without an individualized determination.
Why It Matters
This order represents a significant application of Ninth Circuit precedent limiting mandatory immigration detention. By explicitly prohibiting the immigration judge from denying bond based on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) or BIA precedent regarding jurisdiction, the Court reinforces the requirement for individualized bond hearings with robust procedural protections. The order's detailed requirements—including consideration of financial circumstances, alternative conditions, and the government's burden of clear and convincing evidence—operationalize the due process framework established in Hernandez v. Sessions for a specific detainee.
The Court's reasoning at Dkt. 6, incorporated by reference, extends due process protections to noncitizens whose conditional parole was revoked without an individualized determination. By finding that Maxime acquired a protectable liberty interest when the government placed him on conditional parole and granted his release, the Court applied Morrissey v. Brewer's implicit promise doctrine to the immigration detention context. The pre-deprivation bond hearing requirement, rather than mere release, reflects the Court's determination that release alone would not provide complete relief because the petitioner remained vulnerable to re-detention on the same unlawful basis.