Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kevin Jimenez Peraza entered the United States on humanitarian parole, a discretionary release that necessarily reflected a determination that he was not a danger or flight risk. Immigration authorities later revoked that parole and detained him even though he had committed no crime and had not violated his release conditions.
Jimenez Peraza sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. section 2241. He argued that taking him back into custody without advance notice and an opportunity to contest the detention deprived him of liberty without due process.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston granted the petition and ordered immediate release. The court reasoned that humanitarian parole created a substantial liberty interest and that the government had already determined release was compatible with public safety and appearance requirements. With no crime, violation, or other identified change in circumstances, detention without a pre-deprivation hearing violated the Fifth Amendment.
The court barred re-detention unless the government gives at least seven days’ notice and obtains a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker. At that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention is justified by danger or flight risk. The order preserved exceptions for legally sufficient emergency circumstances and detention connected with execution of a final removal order, while requiring a prompt post-deprivation hearing when advance process is genuinely unavailable.
Key Takeaways
- Prior humanitarian parole can support a protected liberty interest against unexplained re-detention.
- Absent an emergency or changed circumstances, due process may require notice and a hearing before ICE restores physical custody.
- The government bears a clear-and-convincing burden on danger or flight risk under the ordered remedy.
- Habeas relief can include immediate release and prospective limits on renewed detention.
Why It Matters
The decision gives immigration practitioners a concrete framework for challenging re-detention of clients who complied with humanitarian parole. Counsel should preserve the original parole findings, document compliance, and identify whether the government supplied notice or evidence of changed circumstances. The remedy also shows that a later bond hearing may not cure an unjustified loss of liberty when pre-deprivation process was feasible.