Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jean Jonas Victor, a Haitian citizen, presented himself at the Nogales Port of Entry in Arizona on January 12, 2024, and was processed and paroled into the United States. According to the petition, he applied for asylum and withholding of removal in November 2025. The petition further alleges that ICE officers arrested him on October 7, 2026, and took him to the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.
Six days later, on October 13, 2026, Victor filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Christopher LaRose and other federal respondents in the Southern District of California. He alleged that revoking his parole without written notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. Respondents filed a response, and Victor filed a traverse.
Respondents conceded that Victor had previously been released on parole and stated that they had insufficient information about how that parole was terminated. They did not dispute his claim that no notice or hearing preceded the revocation. The court therefore treated the absence of process as uncontested.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Linda Lopez granted the petition on due process grounds alone. She reasoned that due process protects noncitizens, and that even when ICE has discretion to release someone pending removal proceedings, a person who has been released acquires a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody. Citing Pinchi v. Noem and Morrissey v. Brewer, the court explained that release carries an implicit promise that liberty will be revoked only if conditions are violated, and that it reflects a government determination that the person is neither a flight risk nor a danger. Re-arrest therefore generally requires a change in circumstances.
Applying the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors, the court found that each favored Victor. His interest in freedom from detention is significant. The risk of erroneous deprivation was high because he received no reason and no hearing, respondents offered no argument or evidence that the earlier flight-risk and danger determinations had changed, and they did not claim he violated his release conditions. The government's interest in detaining him without notice, reasoning and a hearing was low, and nothing suggested that providing them would be fiscally or administratively burdensome.
The court concluded that the detention was unlawful and ordered respondents to release Victor immediately, subject only to the conditions of his preexisting parole. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Victor and close the case. Because the due process claim resolved the petition, the court declined to reach the APA claim, though a footnote observes that other courts in the district have found APA violations in similar circumstances.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen released on parole has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, and the court held that interest cannot be extinguished without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- The court found that all three Mathews v. Eldridge factors favored the petitioner, and it treated the government's interest in re-detention without a hearing as low.
- Respondents' failure to show changed circumstances, such as new danger or flight risk, or any violation of release conditions, weighed heavily in the court's analysis.
- The remedy was immediate release subject only to the preexisting parole conditions, not merely a new hearing.
- The court did not decide the APA claim, and its order does not address Victor's asylum application or what process would permit lawful re-detention in the future.
Why It Matters
This is a district court order in a single habeas case. It is unreported and binds no other court. It does reflect a line of decisions from the Southern and Northern Districts of California that it cites as reaching similar results, including release as the remedy. Its persuasive value rests on its adoption of the reasoning in Pinchi, Noori v. LaRose and related cases.
For noncitizens who were paroled into the country and later re-arrested without explanation, the order illustrates that courts in this district treat a prior release as creating a liberty interest and require the government to justify re-detention. It leaves open whether, and on what showing, the government could lawfully re-detain Victor after providing notice and a hearing, and it does not touch his asylum application or any removal proceedings. Respondents' thin record, including their admission that they lacked information about the parole termination, also shaped the outcome.