Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Widdjy Gourdet, a Haitian national, entered the United States in April 2024 on Haitian Humanitarian Parole and had a pending Form I-589 Application for Asylum. The record contained no indication that he had a criminal history or otherwise presented a flight risk or danger to the community. Nevertheless, on September 5, 2026, he was arrested and taken into ICE custody at the Central Valley Annex Detention Facility in McFarland, California.
On October 19, 2026, Gourdet filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that his detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Respondents filed a response on November 4, 2026, arguing that his detention was mandatory under the expedited removal procedures set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The matter had initially been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, but the district judge withdrew that reference in the interest of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the government's contention that Gourdet was a quintessential arriving alien and applicant for admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), finding that he is not subject to mandatory detention on this basis. It relied on federal courts' general determination that an individual who has lived freely in the United States under humanitarian parole is not an arriving alien but rather is present in the United States and has full due process rights, citing Baptiste v. Bondi. Because Gourdet was previously released into the United States on parole, he possessed a protected interest in remaining at liberty while his removal proceedings were pending, entitling him to due process protections determined by applying the test in Mathews v. Eldridge.
The court reasoned that release on humanitarian parole necessarily required a finding that Gourdet was not a danger to the community or a flight risk under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(b). It therefore found that his detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, citing M.R.R. v. Chestnut. As Gourdet had committed no crime nor violated the conditions of his parole, the court found the appropriate remedy to be immediate release.
The court granted the petition and ordered that Gourdet be released immediately. It enjoined and restrained respondents from re-detaining him unless the government provides notice a minimum of seven days in advance and holds a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter pursuant to section 1226(a) and applicable regulations, at which his eligibility for bond must be considered and the government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is a flight risk or danger to the community. A footnote provided that if legally sufficient circumstances justify arrest without advance notice, a post-deprivation hearing must be provided within seven days, and that if Gourdet becomes subject to a final order of removal and receives notice of it, respondents may detain him for the sole and limited purpose of executing removal, with a bond hearing in the timeframe required by law. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case and enter judgment for petitioner.
Key Takeaways
- An individual who has lived freely in the United States under humanitarian parole is not an arriving alien subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), but is present in the United States with full due process rights.
- Release on humanitarian parole creates a protected liberty interest in remaining at liberty while removal proceedings are pending, with the extent of due process protections determined under Mathews v. Eldridge.
- Detention of a humanitarian parolee without a pre-deprivation hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment where parole necessarily required a finding that the individual was not a danger or flight risk.
- The court ordered immediate release and barred re-detention absent seven days' advance notice and a bond hearing at which the government must prove flight risk or dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.
- A narrow exception permits detention without advance notice where legally sufficient circumstances justify it, provided a post-deprivation hearing occurs within seven days, and permits detention solely to execute a final order of removal after notice.
Why It Matters
The decision adds to a growing body of federal authority rejecting the government's position that humanitarian parolees are arriving aliens subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). By treating parolees who have lived freely in the United States as present persons with full due process rights, the court required procedural protections before the government could deprive them of liberty.
The order's detailed conditions on any future detention, including advance notice, a bond hearing before a neutral arbiter, and a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden on the government, provide a concrete remedial framework for due process violations in immigration detention. The narrow exceptions for emergency arrests and execution of final removal orders preserve limited government authority while maintaining judicial oversight of custody.