Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Deylin Masiel Morazan Centeno, a Nicaraguan citizen, entered the United States in 2022 and was released on humanitarian parole. Respondents' exhibit shows the parole was to expire on March 1, 2023; she alleged it was never properly revoked. She alleged, and Respondents did not contest, that she has no criminal record, has a pending asylum application, received a work permit in November 2024, and attended every ICE and USCIS appointment. On April 14, 2026, she was detained at a routine ICE check-in before any removal order existed, and she alleges she received no warrant or notice to appear until April 16. An immigration judge ordered removal on August 7, 2026; her Board of Immigration Appeals appeal is pending.
Two earlier pro se habeas petitions produced bond hearings, but the immigration judge denied bond on May 5 and July 28, 2026, citing flight risk. After counsel was appointed, she filed this first amended petition under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 raising six grounds, including substantive and procedural due process, Fourth Amendment, and statutory claims. She sought release, a pre-deprivation hearing before any re-detention, reinstatement of parole, and costs and fees. The parties consented to a magistrate judge.
The Court’s Holding
The court excused prudential exhaustion as futile because immigration judges cannot address the constitutionality of the initial re-detention. It treated the petition as successive but found cause and prejudice, so no abuse of the writ: she filed earlier petitions from custody without counsel, and her counseled claims had merit. Her suggestion that she may have been misled by unauthorized advisers was an argument, not a finding.
On Ground 2, the court applied Mathews v. Eldridge. Following many district courts, it held that a previously released noncitizen has a protected liberty interest resting on an implicit promise that release will be revoked only for changed circumstances, and that the interest survived automatic expiration of parole. Three years of compliance and a 2024 work permit supported reasonable reliance. The risk of error was high because Respondents identified no changed circumstances in April 2026, never produced the earlier bond findings, and did not contest her record or ties. The government's interest in skipping a hearing was minimal, and the burden of a hearing was low.
The court ordered immediate release, reasoning that a post-detention hearing would let the government cure any violation by waiting until a petition is filed. If release does not occur within three days, Petitioner may seek an order to show cause re contempt. Respondents may not re-detain her without a pre-detention hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, where they must show by clear and convincing evidence either flight risk or danger requiring custody, or a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future due to changed circumstances. The court did not reach the remaining grounds and dismissed them; it made no merits finding on them. It found no authority to reinstate expired parole, and noted that EAJA fees require a separate post-judgment motion.
Key Takeaways
- A later bond hearing did not satisfy due process here; the court required a pre-deprivation hearing and ordered release.
- The liberty interest rested on an implicit promise from prior release and reasonable reliance, and it survived the expiration of parole.
- Respondents' failure to identify changed circumstances or to contest the petitioner's record weighed heavily in the balancing.
- The order does not end the government's ability to detain her; the removal order and the BIA appeal remain pending.
- The abuse-of-the-writ ruling turned on prior pro se status and later-appointed counsel, so it may not extend to every successive petition.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported order by a magistrate judge sitting by consent, so it is persuasive district-court authority rather than binding precedent. It joins other district decisions applying Mathews to the re-detention of released noncitizens, including after humanitarian parole has lapsed. The court also noted that Respondents are routinely able to comply with orders requiring a hearing within seven days.
Open issues remain. The court did not decide the substantive due process, Fourth Amendment, or statutory claims, did not address the merits of removal, and did not grant reinstatement of parole or fees. The abuse-of-the-writ ruling also turned on her prior unrepresented status.