Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Robert Egiazarian, a Russian national, was paroled into the United States in March 2022 after an asylum officer found that he had a credible fear of persecution. He remained in the country, applied for asylum during ongoing removal proceedings, and was cited or arrested for traffic violations in 2026. When he reported to an ICE office on September 11, 2026, as required by his parole conditions, ICE arrested and detained him. ICE also terminated his parole that day, citing his recent arrests on traffic warrants as showing danger and flight risk. He remained detained at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center and sought release or a custody redetermination hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The respondents maintained that Egiazarian was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), that he could challenge ICE's custody determination at a bond hearing before an immigration judge, and that they did not oppose an order requiring such a hearing. The court relied on that position in conditionally granting the alternative relief of a bond hearing rather than ordering unconditional release. It also explained that, absent the government's concession, Egiazarian might not necessarily qualify for discretionary custody redetermination because he had been encountered at the border as an arriving alien without admission documents and had entered through humanitarian parole.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition in part and ordered that, no later than ten days after entry of judgment, Egiazarian must be released from ICE custody unless he receives an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a). Citing Ninth Circuit authority, the court stated that a § 1226(a) detainee will be released on bond if he demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that he is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. The order therefore did not itself direct release on bond or decide the ultimate custody outcome; it required either release or the specified hearing.
At the hearing, a neutral immigration judge must exercise discretion and make an individualized determination about detention pending removal proceedings based on all relevant facts. The court listed criminal history, immigration history, manner of entry, length of residence, family ties, employment, community connections, compliance with prior orders, and eligibility for relief from removal among the pertinent considerations. Judgment was to be entered accordingly, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce its judgment subject to the limits of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e).
A footnote distinguished humanitarian parole under INA § 212(d)(5) from release on conditions sometimes called conditional parole under § 1226(a). The court observed that, without humanitarian parole, an arriving alien in Egiazarian's position would be subject to mandatory detention under INA § 235(b), and that regulations generally withhold immigration judges' authority to redetermine custody of arriving aliens, including those paroled after arrival. Nevertheless, because the government conceded the availability of the hearing, the court expressly left undecided whether a humanitarian parolee who remains in the country after parole expires may be mandatorily detained.
Key Takeaways
- The petition was granted only in part, with the court requiring release within ten days after judgment unless ICE provides an individualized bond hearing under § 1226(a).
- The government's position that Egiazarian was detained under § 1226(a) and its lack of opposition to a bond-hearing order were central to the conditional relief.
- A neutral immigration judge must consider all relevant facts rather than rely solely on the traffic arrests cited when ICE terminated parole.
- The court did not decide whether a humanitarian parolee who remains beyond the parole period may be subject to mandatory detention.
- The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the judgment, expressly subject to the limitations imposed by § 1226(e).
Why It Matters
The order ties relief to the government's own characterization of the detention authority and its acceptance of a bond hearing, while avoiding a broader ruling on mandatory detention of humanitarian parolees. Its detailed instructions require an individualized custody assessment and identify the evidence the immigration judge must consider. The retained-jurisdiction provision also supplies an enforcement mechanism, although the court acknowledged the statutory limits on judicial review under § 1226(e).