Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Daniel Ribera Arauz, a national and citizen of Bolivia, entered the United States without inspection on December 3, 2024. On December 19, 2024, Immigration and Customs Enforcement processed him and issued an Interim Notice Authorizing Parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services later administered his immigration matters, including an employment-authorization application and a biometrics appointment. On August 5, 2026, while appearing for a scheduled ICE check-in, he was arrested and detained; he alleged he received no notice or opportunity to be heard beforehand and was held at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.
An initial habeas petition filed through a next friend on August 19, 2026 was dismissed without prejudice on August 28, 2026 because the next friend did not proceed with attorney representation. Represented by counsel, Arauz filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 14, 2026. He contended that his parole into the United States created a liberty interest in continued freedom, that detention without constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation procedures violated due process, and that respondents acted arbitrarily and capriciously by offering no explanation for revoking that liberty. He asked the court to find his detention unlawful and order his immediate release.
Respondents filed a return on October 8, 2026, acknowledging that Arauz was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and had previously been released on parole, but stating they had insufficient information about the termination of his parole to provide to the court. They did not oppose the petition and deferred to the court on appropriate relief. Arauz filed a traverse the same day supporting his request for immediate release.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that habeas corpus attacks the legality of custody and that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 authorizes relief when a petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal laws or treaties, with the petitioner bearing the burden of proof. Under the Fifth Amendment, due process extends to noncitizens within the United States whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent, and due process generally requires some kind of hearing before the government deprives a person of liberty.
The court found it uncontested that Arauz passed through the nation's gates in December 2024 and was soon paroled into the United States. Relying on the principle that release creates an implicit promise that liberty will be revoked only for failure to comply with release conditions, the court emphasized that ICE arrested and detained him without any indication that parole had been revoked, without notice, and without an opportunity to be heard. Respondents did not dispute his due process claim or his requested relief. The court expressly found that his due process rights were violated when he was detained without notice or an opportunity to be heard.
The court therefore granted the amended petition and ordered respondents to release Arauz immediately, subject to the conditions of his pre-existing parole. It also enjoined and restrained respondents from detaining him unless he is provided notice of the reasons for revocation of parole and a hearing to determine whether detention is warranted. The Clerk of the Court was directed to close the matter.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted Arauz's amended § 2241 habeas petition after finding that detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard violated his due process rights.
- Respondents were ordered to release him immediately, subject to the conditions of his pre-existing parole.
- The injunction permits future detention only after notice of the reasons for parole revocation and a hearing on whether detention is warranted.
- Respondents acknowledged his prior parole, reported insufficient information about its termination, and did not oppose the petition or dispute the requested relief.
- The ruling rests on the conceded parole history and the absence of constitutionally required process, not a general prohibition on immigration detention.
Why It Matters
The decision applies established due process principles to a noncitizen who was paroled into the United States and later detained at a scheduled ICE check-in. The court treated the government's earlier release as creating a protected expectation of continued liberty and focused on the absence of notice, any indication of parole revocation, or an opportunity to be heard, drawing on Supreme Court authority recognizing due process for noncitizens and Ninth Circuit authority confirming that discretion to incarcerate noncitizens remains constrained by due process.
The relief is tailored to that procedural violation. Immediate release restores Arauz to his pre-existing parole conditions, while the injunction specifies the process required before respondents may detain him again. The order does not state that parole can never be revoked or that immigration detention is categorically unavailable; it requires notice of reasons and a hearing on whether detention is warranted, leaving those substantive determinations to the required process.