Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Vazgen Shahbazyan, a native of Armenia, presented himself at the San Ysidro Port of Entry after arriving on October 28, 2021, and was paroled into the United States on humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). He filed an affirmative asylum application on October 18, 2022, and the government initiated removal proceedings on December 1, 2022, by issuing a Notice to Appear. According to the petition, he was not detained after that point, lived openly in Glendale, California, held an employment authorization document valid through May 14, 2030, and worked as a chef and rideshare driver to support his family.
The petition alleges that on October 16, 2026, Petitioner was detained at the gate of Camp Pendleton Marine Base after dropping off a passenger, then moved to a San Diego holding facility and to the Otay Mesa Detention Center, where he remained held. He alleges that he was never shown a warrant, never told his parole had been terminated, and never given a chance to contest the detention. These are allegations from the petition, and the order makes no separate factual findings on them. After the court issued an order to show cause, Respondents filed a return acknowledging the prior humanitarian parole, stating that they did not oppose the petition, and deferring to the court on the appropriate relief.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition. Because Respondents did not oppose it, the court expressly declined to conduct a full analysis of the claims. It reasoned that the government had released Petitioner in October 2021, and that many courts, including this one, have held that a prior grant of release, including humanitarian parole, creates a liberty interest and entitles the person to procedural due process. Citing its own earlier decisions in Mohammadi v. Larose and Isoev v. Larose, the court adopted its prior reasoning and concluded that due process requires Petitioner's release.
The relief is specific and limited. Respondents were ordered to release Petitioner immediately, subject to any conditions of his prior release that existed when he was re-detained. The parties must file a joint status report by November 6, 2026, confirming release, and the Clerk was directed to close the case. The order does not decide Petitioner's asylum claim or removal case, does not resolve the contested allegations about warrants and notice, and does not say what process the government must provide before any future re-detention.
Key Takeaways
- In this court's view, a prior grant of release, including humanitarian parole, gives rise to a liberty interest that triggers procedural due process protections against re-detention.
- The ruling rests on the court's earlier decisions rather than new analysis, because Respondents did not oppose the petition and deferred to the court on relief.
- The remedy is release subject to the conditions of the earlier release, not a ruling on Petitioner's right to remain in the United States or on his asylum application.
- The court required a joint status report by November 6, 2026, confirming release, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
- The facts about the missing warrant and notice come from the petition's allegations, not from findings by the court.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished district court order, so it carries no binding precedential weight, and it relies on the court's earlier rulings rather than new analysis. Its value lies in showing how this court applies its view that a prior grant of release, including humanitarian parole, creates a liberty interest, and that it applies that view even in a short order when the government does not oppose.
Because the government did not oppose the petition, the order does not test any government defenses, such as arguments about statutory detention authority or jurisdiction. Questions left open include what process the government must provide before any future re-detention, how the asylum application and removal case will proceed, and whether other courts will accept the same reasoning.