Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Jacquelin Val, a citizen of Haiti, entered the United States on October 6, 2023 through the Haitian Humanitarian Parole Program. He was processed by the Department of Homeland Security and paroled into the country under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). After release, Val resided continuously in the United States, obtained an employment authorization document, married his wife, and together they filed an I-130 petition and I-485 application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident.
On August 13, 2026, Val was detained by ICE officers in Miami and subsequently transferred to the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, where he remained in custody. Val filed a verified emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his detention violated 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A), 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e), and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Respondents argued that Val was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b) but conceded they had insufficient information regarding termination of his parole, did not oppose the petition, and deferred to the Court on appropriate relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus in light of Respondents' non-opposition and consistent with prior orders granting similar petitions. The Court found that immediate release, rather than a bond hearing, was the appropriate remedy, citing precedent that post-deprivation bond hearings cannot serve as adequate procedural safeguards because they occur after the fact and cannot prevent erroneous deprivation of liberty. The Court relied on E.A. T.-B. v. Wamsley, Jorge M.F. v. Jennings, and Domingo v. Kaiser for the principle that even a prompt post-detention bond hearing does not undo the harm of potentially erroneous detention.
The Court ordered three specific forms of relief: (1) Respondents must immediately release Petitioner from custody, subject to the conditions of his preexisting parole; (2) Prior to any re-detention, Petitioner shall receive a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether detention is warranted, at which the noncitizen shall bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not a danger to the community or a risk of flight; and (3) At any such hearing, if the immigration judge determines bond is appropriate, the judge shall consider alternative conditions of release and the noncitizen's ability to pay. The Court cited Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland and Hernandez v. Sessions for the burden allocation and bond considerations respectively.
Key Takeaways
- The Court granted habeas relief where the government conceded insufficient information regarding termination of humanitarian parole and did not oppose the petition.
- Immediate release was ordered rather than a bond hearing, based on precedent holding that post-deprivation hearings cannot adequately safeguard against erroneous deprivation of liberty.
- Any future re-detention requires a prior hearing before an immigration judge where the noncitizen bears the burden of proving he is not a danger or flight risk by a preponderance of the evidence.
- If bond is set at a future hearing, the immigration judge must consider alternative conditions of release and the noncitizen's ability to pay.
- The decision follows a pattern of similar rulings in the Southern District of California granting habeas petitions for individuals detained after being paroled under humanitarian programs.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces procedural protections for noncitizens paroled into the United States under humanitarian programs, establishing that the government cannot detain such individuals without adequate justification and process. The requirement of a pre-detention hearing before any re-detention, with the burden on the noncitizen but with consideration of ability to pay and alternative conditions, creates a structured framework balancing government interests and individual liberty. The decision aligns with a growing body of district court rulings in the Ninth Circuit recognizing that post-deprivation bond hearings are constitutionally insufficient when the initial detention lacks legal basis.