Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Wilguer Saintilus, a native and citizen of Haiti, entered the United States on or about April 1, 2023, was processed by the Department of Homeland Security upon arrival, and was paroled into the country. He remained physically at liberty for more than three and a half years while pursuing applications for asylum and Temporary Protected Status. On October 7, 2026, ICE officers approached and arrested him in San Diego, California, without providing any prior notice, opportunity to be heard, or individualized determination before a neutral decisionmaker as to whether re-detention was warranted.
Saintilus filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his re-detention without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process. Respondents maintained that he was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and asserted that Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock was inapplicable, but they recognized that courts in this district had rejected those positions, declined to oppose the petition, and deferred to the Court on the appropriate relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court concluded that Saintilus had a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody. Because the government's 2023 decision to parole him implicitly determined that he was neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk, and because there was no suggestion he violated any terms of his release during the years he remained at liberty, that release created an implicit promise upon which he could rely that his liberty would be revoked only for failure to live up to the conditions of release. The Court applied the three Mathews v. Eldridge factors and found all of them supported a due process violation: his private liberty interest in freedom from physical restraint was significant; the risk of erroneous deprivation was high because the government revoked his release without notification, reasoning, or a hearing and no evidence showed changed circumstances; and the government's interest in detaining him without any process was low.
The Court granted the petition on due process grounds and ordered Respondents to immediately release Saintilus from custody subject to the conditions of his preexisting parole. The Court further ordered that, prior to any re-detention, Saintilus is entitled to notice of the reasons for revocation of his parole and a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, with the government bearing the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight. The parties were ordered to file a Joint Status Report by November 6, 2026, confirming release, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the file. In footnote 1, the Court separately noted that petitioner's counsel may submit an Equal Access to Justice Act fee application within 30 days of the order.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen paroled into the United States and living at liberty for years acquires a protected liberty interest under the Fifth Amendment that cannot be revoked without due process.
- Re-detention without notice, reasoning, or a hearing violates due process even if the government initially had discretion to detain, because release creates an implicit promise of continued liberty absent materially changed circumstances.
- All three Mathews v. Eldridge factors weighed against the government here: a significant private liberty interest, a high risk of erroneous deprivation with no hearing or changed-circumstances evidence, and a low government interest in detention without process.
- Relief for unlawful re-detention includes immediate release subject to preexisting parole conditions, plus a requirement that the government prove by clear and convincing evidence at a future hearing before a neutral decisionmaker that detention is warranted.
- The order also preserves a separate path for relief: prevailing petitioner's counsel may file an EAJA fee application within 30 days of the order.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that immigration parole creates a constitutionally protected liberty interest that cannot be arbitrarily revoked. It aligns with a growing body of district court precedent holding that due process requires notice and a hearing before re-detaining individuals who have been living in the community under government supervision for years, and it confirms that federal habeas jurisdiction under § 2241 remains available for collateral challenges to re-detention independent of the removal process.
The ruling places the burden on the government to justify any future detention by clear and convincing evidence, a significant procedural safeguard that protects against erroneous deprivation of liberty and ensures that parole revocation is based on current evidence of dangerousness or flight risk rather than the mere pendency of removal proceedings.