Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Sonu Sonu, a citizen of India, entered the United States in 2023 near Lukeville, Arizona.After brief detention by Customs and Border Protection, he was released and served with a Notice to Appear placing him in ongoing removal proceedings.Sonu complied with release conditions and had no criminal history.In early October 2026, ICE arrested Sonu while he attended a scheduled check-in appointment.
Respondents asserted the arrest was based on four alleged reporting violations but provided no records detailing those violations.Sonu filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging his re-detention violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process because he received no prior notice of parole revocation and no opportunity to challenge it.The court issued an order to show cause directing Respondents to distinguish the case from prior rulings in Avila v.Warden and Kumar v.Becerra, where the court granted habeas relief on similar grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered Sonu’s immediate release.It held that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required because Sonu raised a constitutional challenge to his detention, which the Board of Immigration Appeals lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate.On the merits, the court found that noncitizens released pending removal proceedings acquire a liberty interest in continued freedom protected by the Fifth Amendment.Applying the Mathews v.
Eldridge balancing test, the court concluded Sonu was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before his parole could be revoked.The government’s interest in detention without process was low, the risk of erroneous deprivation was high, and Sonu’s appearance at a scheduled check-in demonstrated compliance rather than flight risk.Respondents failed to argue or show that pre-deprivation process was impracticable.The court permanently enjoined re-detention absent constitutional safeguards, including pre-deprivation notice, a timely hearing at which the government bears the burden of proving danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, and the right to counsel.
Key Takeaways
- Noncitizens released on parole pending removal proceedings possess a Fifth Amendment liberty interest in their continued freedom.
- Revocation of parole requires pre-deprivation notice and a hearing unless the government shows pre-deprivation process was impracticable or would have caused flight.
- Constitutional challenges to detention are exempt from prudential exhaustion requirements because the BIA cannot rule on constitutionality of statutes.
- Attendance at a scheduled ICE check-in negates any inference of flight risk justifying summary arrest.
- The government must prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence at any future detention hearing.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces due process protections for noncitizens whom the government has released into the community pending immigration proceedings.By requiring pre-deprivation process before parole revocation—absent a specific showing of impracticability or flight risk—the court limits ICE’s ability to re-detain individuals summarily based on unverified allegations.The ruling aligns with a line of Eastern District of California cases (Avila, Kumar) establishing that the Mathews v.Eldridge framework mandates robust procedural safeguards before the government can deprive a released noncitizen of liberty.
The permanent injunction and clear-and-convincing burden set a high bar for any future detention, providing a template for similar habeas challenges in the district.The order also shows why the factual record matters.The government cited four reporting violations but supplied no records describing them, while Sonu was arrested at a scheduled check-in.That combination undercut any claim that advance process was impracticable or likely to prompt flight.