Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Salomon Elias Ramirez Santos, a 22-year-old Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States in March 2022 to apply for asylum. The Department of Homeland Security detained him and initiated removal proceedings, but later paroled him into the country on his own recognizance. After his release, he applied for asylum and an immigration judge terminated the removal proceedings. Despite his compliance with parole, respondents took him into custody without notice on September 14, 2026.
Ramirez Santos petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that re-detention without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing violated due process. Respondents filed a return and he filed a traverse. Although respondents conceded that he was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was entitled to a bond hearing, they encouraged the court to avoid his principal constitutional argument. The court explained that collateral claims arising independently of removal, including detention challenges, remain within district-court habeas jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that Ramirez Santos had a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody. His 2022 release implicitly reflected a government determination that he was neither dangerous nor a flight risk, he remained at liberty for more than four years while pursuing asylum, and respondents identified no violation of his release conditions. Relying on due process principles governing release and revocation, the court rejected the premise that the government's initial detention discretion permitted unrestricted re-detention after parole.
Applying Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found all three factors favored Ramirez Santos. His interest in freedom from physical restraint was substantial; the risk of erroneous deprivation was high because respondents revoked release without notification, reasoning, or a hearing and offered no evidence of changed circumstances; and the government's interest in detention without those procedures was low. The court therefore concluded that his detention was unlawful and that immediate release, rather than merely a bond hearing, was the appropriate remedy because process was required before re-detention.
The order granted the petition on due process grounds and required immediate release subject to preexisting parole conditions. Before any future re-detention, Ramirez Santos must receive reasons for parole revocation and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker, with the government bearing the burden of proving danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. The parties must file a joint status report by October 29, 2026 confirming release, and the clerk must close the file. The court did not decide the validity of the administrative warrant issued after detention, and permitted counsel to submit an EAJA fee application within 30 days.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen released on immigration parole can have a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody, particularly after years of compliance and no asserted change in danger or flight-risk findings.
- The court applied all three Mathews factors and found that re-detention without notice, reasons, or an opportunity to be heard denied due process.
- Immediate release under the preexisting parole conditions was ordered because the constitutional defect concerned the absence of process before re-detention, not merely the lack of a bond hearing afterward.
- Any future re-detention requires notice of the revocation reasons and a neutral-decision-maker hearing at which the government must prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court expressly left the administrative warrant's validity undecided and allowed a timely EAJA application rather than awarding fees in the order itself.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a post-release due process claim from a challenge to a final removal order and treats the lawfulness of re-detention as an independent matter suitable for district-court habeas review. It also explains why a bond hearing alone would not remedy the government's failure to provide process before revoking parole.
The ruling supplies concrete procedural requirements for any renewed detention while leaving the government an opportunity to seek re-detention through constitutionally adequate notice and a hearing. Its disposition is release under existing parole conditions, not termination of immigration enforcement or a ruling on the asylum application.