Full Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JEAN RALPH HILAIRE, Case No.: 3:26-cv-05539-LEK-VET 5 Petitioner, 6 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART PETITION 7 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 8 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden, Otay AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Mesa Detention Center; MARKWAYNE WITHIN THREE DAYS; 9 MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of COMPLAINT FOR 10 Homeland Security; DAVID J. DECLARATORY AND VENTURELLA, Senior Official INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 11 Performing the Duties of the Director, 12 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD BLANCHE, 13 Attorney General of the United States, 14 U.S. Department of Justice, Respondents. 15 16 17 Before this Court is Petitioner Jean Ralph Hilaire’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 18 for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Order to Show Cause Within Three Days; Complaint for 19 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Petition”), filed on September 28, 2026. [Dkt. no. 1.] 20 The respondents, identified in the Petition as Christopher LaRose, Warden, Otay Mesa 21 Detention Center; Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 22 (“DHS”); David J. Venturella, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director, U.S. 23 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); and Todd Blanche, Attorney General of 24 the United States, U.S. Department of Justice (“Respondents”), filed a response to the 25 Petition (“Response”) on October 5, 2026. [Dkt. no. 5.] On October 7, 2026, Petitioner 26 filed a traverse (“Traverse”). [Dkt. no. 6.] 27 1 BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner, a citizen and native of Haiti, entered the United States on June 22, 3 2023. See Petition at ¶¶ 2, 25-26; see also Response, Exh. 1 (DHS Record of 4 Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, Form I-213, dated 7/29/26 (“Form I-213”)) at 2. 5 Petitioner was admitted and granted parole into the United States under the Haitian 6 Humanitarian Parole program through June 20, 2025. See Petition at ¶ 26; id., Exh. 1 7 (printout of U.S. Customs and Border Protection website, with information regarding 8 Petitioner’s most recent Form I-94); Response, Exh. 1 (Form I-213) at 2. In 2023, United 9 States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued Petitioner work 10 authorization documents. See Petition at ¶ 30; see also id., Exh. 4 (Petitioner’s 11 Employment Authorization card, valid from 7/31/23 to 5/20/25). Petitioner applied for 12 asylum and was scheduled to attend his affirmative asylum interview on July 28, 2026. 13 See Petition at ¶¶ 28-29; see also id., Exh. 3 (USCIS Notice of Action, Form I-797C, 14 dated 5/29/26 (“5/29/26 Form I-797C”)). 15 On July 28, 2026, and pursuant to the 5/29/26 Form I-797C, Petitioner 16 appeared at his affirmative asylum interview at the USCIS Newark Asylum Office in 17 Newark, New Jersey. See Petition at ¶ 33; see also id., Exh. 3. Petitioner was re-detained 18 by ICE at his asylum interview. See Petition at ¶ 33. Petitioner asserts that Respondents 19 provided no notice explaining why he was being detained or any type of individualized 20 determination prior to his detention regarding Petitioner’s risk of danger to the 21 community or flight risk. See Petition at ¶¶ 32, 54. On September 22, 2026, Petitioner 22 was ordered removed from the United States. He has until October 22, 2026 to appeal to 23 the Board of Immigration Appeals. As of the filing of the Petition, Petitioner was 24 detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, California. See id. at ¶ 35. 25 Petitioner’s primary argument is that his re-detention violates his due process rights. See 26 id. at pgs. 10-12. Petitioner also argues that Respondents’ decision to detain him violated 27 the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), Title 5 United States Code 28 1 Section 706(2)(A). [Id. at pgs. 12-13.] Petitioner alleges he is entitled to, inter alia, 2 immediate release. See id. at pgs. 13-15. 3 Respondents assert “that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 4 [8 U.S.C.] § 1225(b)(2).” [Response at 2.] They also assert that Rodriguez Vazquez v. 5 Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160 (9th Cir. 2026), does not apply to Petitioner. See id. 6 Nevertheless, Respondents “acknowledge[] that this Court’s prior decisions will control 7 the result here if the Court adheres to its prior decisions.” [Id. at 2-3 (citing cases).] They 8 also admit that they “have insufficient information regarding termination of [Petitioner’s] 9 parole, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2), to provide to the Court,” [id. at 2,] although 10 they assert that “Petitioner was arrested for a car accident that caused vehicle damage and 11 later pled guilty to the charge,” [id. at 3 (citation omitted)]. Accordingly, Respondents 12 “do[] not oppose the petition and defer[] to the Court on the appropriate relief.” [Id.] 13 DISCUSSION 14 This Court assumes, without deciding, that the mandatory detention 15 procedures of Section 1225(b)(2) govern Petitioner’s detention. However, as Petitioner 16 recognizes, whether Section 1225(b)(2) “governs Petitioner’s present detention is distinct 17 from whether Respondents could take Petitioner from physical liberty into detention 18 without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, and an individualized determination 19 before a neutral decisionmaker.” [Traverse at 5.] Nor does Respondents’ passing 20 reference to Petitioner’s guilty plea concerning a “charge” “for a car accident that caused 21 vehicle damage,” [Response at 3 (citation omitted),] establish that Petitioner received an 22 individualized determination prior to his re-detention. 23 While Respondents assert that this Court should decline to address, inter 24 alia, Petitioner’s due process arguments, see id. at 3 n.2, they do not assert that this Court 25 should deny Petitioner’s request for immediate release. This Court construes 26 Respondents’ non-opposition to Petitioner’s request for immediate release as a 27 concession that Petitioner’s detention violates his due process rights. 28 1 In Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (S.D. Cal. 2025), this district 2 court ruled that the respondents violated the petitioner’s Fifth Amendment due process 3 rights when the respondents revoked the petitioner’s parole by sending a mass, generic 4 notification one morning and arresting the petitioner later that day at his immigration 5 hearing. Id. at 1155, 1166. This district court concluded that the petitioner had “a 6 protectable expectation of his due process rights in his removal proceedings and the fair 7 procedures this country guarantees. . . . Particularly, he was entitled to both notification 8 of revocation and the reasoning for revocation, if not also an opportunity to be heard and 9 contest the determination.” Id. at 1165. The district court ordered the petitioner’s 10 immediate release. Id. at 1154.1 11 In the instant action, Petitioner received even less due process than the 12 petitioner in Noori. Petitioner received no notification or individualized reason as to why 13 his parole was being revoked before he was summarily detained on July 28, 2026. See 14 Petition at ¶ 33. Nor have Respondents explained, even after they filed the Response, 15 what circumstances have changed to warrant Petitioner’s detention.2 Providing Petitioner 16 17 18 1 The district court had previously issued a truncated order ordering the petitioner’s immediate release. See Noori, 807 F. Supp. 3d at 1154. The 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146 order 19 was issued to “provide[] a fuller legal analysis and legal basis for the September 26, 2025 20 Order.” Id. 21 2 Respondents appear to suggest, without expressly arguing, that the expiration of 22 Petitioner’s parole reverts the authority for his detention to Section 1225(b)(2). See Response at 2 n.1 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); Matter of Q. Li, 29 I. & N. Dec. 66, 23 69-70 (BIA 2025)). Even if Respondents had expressly advanced this argument, “many 24 courts in the Ninth Circuit [Court of Appeals] have held that the expiration of parole does not extinguish a petitioner’s entitlement to due process.” See Aliyev v. LaRose, Case 25 No.: 3:26-cv-01119-CAB-JLB, 2026 WL 699818, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2026) (citing 26 cases). In other words, a petitioner’s private interest does not expire along with his or her parole agreement. See, e.g., Nayem v. LaRose, Case No.: 26-cv-777-RSH-DEB, 2026 27 (. . . continued) 28 1 a bond hearing would not remedy the Fifth Amendment violation he has already 2 experienced. Only release from detention can accomplish that now.3 3 Petitioner has also requested that this Court award him attorney’s fees and 4 costs. See Petition at pg. 15. This Court will consider an application requesting 5 reasonable attorney’s fees and costs that is filed within thirty days of the entry of 6 judgment. This Court, therefore, denies Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs 7 without prejudice. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Jean Ralph Hilaire’s Petition for Writ 10 of Habeas Corpus and Order to Show Cause Within Three Days; Complaint for 11 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed September 28, 2026, is GRANTED IN PART 12 AND DENIED IN PART. The Petition is GRANTED insofar as Respondents are 13 ORDERED to release Petitioner from custody under the same conditions that existed 14 immediately prior to Petitioner’s detention on July 28, 2026. Respondents are also 15 ORDERED to present Petitioner with the following options for his release: 1) immediate 16 release in this District, no later than twenty-four hours after the filing of this Order; or 17 2) release in or near Newark, New Jersey by October 23, 2026. 18 19 20 21 WL 915023, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2026); Tunaca-Galindo v. Att’y Gen. of United States, Case No.: 26cv2226-LL-BJW, 2026 WL 1229587, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 5, 2026); 22 see also Omer G.G. v. Kaiser, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1098, 1109 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (stating the 23 “petitioner’s liberty interest did not expire along with his parole”). The expiration of one’s parole “does not somehow obviate the need for the government to provide an 24 individualized hearing prior to detaining the parolee.” L.M. v. Noem, Case No. 2:25-cv- 25 02194-RFB-BNW, 2026 WL 103231, at *13 (D. Nev. Jan. 14, 2026) (citing Ramirez Tesara v. Wamsley, 800 F. Supp. 3d 1130, 1136 (W.D. Wash. 2025)). 26 27 3 In light of this Court’s determination that Petitioner is entitled to immediate release, this Court need not address Petitioner’s APA claim. See Petition at pgs. 12-13. 28 1 Further, Respondents are ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from: re- 2 || detaining Petitioner unless Respondents demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at 3 ||a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that Petitioner presents a flight 4 ||risk or danger to the community such that his physical custody is legally justified; placing 5 || Petitioner in an Alternatives to Detention program; and placing an ankle monitor on 6 || Petitioner upon his release. The Petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to 7 || Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. 8 The parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report by October 30, 2026, 9 || confirming that Petitioner has been released. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAIT, October 16, 2026. 12 se Ss” & 13 Mg @ /s/ Leslie E. Kobayashi 14 Leslie E. Kobayashi b Senior U.S. District Judge 15 $ Ta 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 JEAN RALPH HILAIRE VS. CHRISTOPHER LAROSE ET AL.; CASE NO. 3:26- 25 || CV-05539-LEK-VET; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART %6 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN THREE DAYS; COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND 27 | INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 28