Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mehmet Sadik Cetin, a native of Türkiye, was processed and paroled into the United States in June 2022. Immigration authorities issued him a Form I-220A and an Order of Release on Recognizance, along with an Interim Notice Authorizing Parole confirming that ICE elected to parole him under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). In his petition, Cetin alleged that from June 2022 onward he remained at liberty, attended all mandated periodic check-ins, and pursued an asylum claim before USCIS.
Cetin alleged that on October 5, 2026, ICE agents pulled him over while he was driving and took him into custody, without prior notice that his liberty would be revoked, any individualized explanation for the re-detention, or an opportunity to contest the revocation before a neutral decisionmaker. He was transferred from detention in downtown San Diego to the Otay Mesa Detention Center, where he was detained at the time of the order. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; after the court issued an order to show cause, the government filed a return and Cetin filed a traverse.
The Court’s Holding
In their return, the respondents confirmed that Cetin had previously been released from immigration custody on humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), acknowledged having insufficient information regarding termination of that parole to supply to the court, stated that they did not oppose the petition, and deferred to the court on the appropriate relief. In light of those statements, the court declined to engage in a full analysis of the claims.
The court observed that many courts, including this one, have repeatedly held that a prior grant of release raises a liberty interest for the petitioner and entitles the petitioner to procedural due process rights, citing its own prior decisions in Totskii v. LaRose and Isoev v. Larose. Rather than re-deciding the issue, the court adopted that prior reasoning and found that due process required Cetin's release.
The court granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the respondents to immediately release Cetin from custody, subject to any conditions of his prior release that existed at the time he was re-detained. The parties were separately ordered to file a Joint Status Report by October 19, 2026, confirming that Cetin had been released, and the Clerk of Court was ordered to close the case.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen paroled into the United States who, according to his petition, complied with check-ins and pursued asylum alleged he could not be re-detained without notice, an individualized explanation, or a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker.
- The government conceded it lacked information about any termination of the petitioner's parole, did not oppose the habeas petition, and deferred to the court on relief.
- The court adopted its prior rulings in Totskii v. LaRose and Isoev v. Larose rather than issuing a new holding, concluding that a prior grant of release creates a liberty interest that triggers procedural due process protections.
- The court ordered the respondents to release the petitioner immediately subject to his prior release conditions, required the parties to file a joint status report confirming compliance by October 19, 2026, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Why It Matters
The order applies a growing line of district court decisions holding that immigration parolees who have lived at liberty in the community acquire a constitutionally protected liberty interest, so the government cannot summarily revoke parole and re-detain them without procedural safeguards; here the court expressly adopted that prior reasoning rather than conducting a fresh analysis.
Because the government declined to oppose the petition and admitted it could not document any parole termination, the decision illustrates how quickly habeas relief may follow when re-detention rests on an undocumented or unexplained revocation of parole.