Jefferson Fabian Pluas Urena v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFERSON FABIAN PLUAS URENA, Case No.: 26cv1410-LL-SBC

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 14 KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the § 2241 Department of Homeland Security, et al., 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 7] 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Jefferson Fabian Pluas Urena’s Amended Petition for 19 a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 7 (“Pet.”). Respondents filed a 20 Response [ECF No. 8], and Petitioner filed a Traverse [ECF No. 9]. For the reasons set 21 forth below, the Court GRANTS the Amended Petition. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador who came to the United States in about August 24 2022 seeking asylum. Pet. at 2, 9. He was paroled into the country and given a work permit. 25 Id. at 2, 9. Petitioner’s asylum application is pending, and he has complied with his 26 immigration check-in appointments. Id. at 2, 4, 9–10. On October 20, 2025, shortly after 27 Petitioner was involved in a car accident, local police transferred him to the custody of 28 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and he has been in immigration detention ever 1 since. Id. at 2–3, 10. Petitioner was not told whether or why his parole was revoked or 2 given an opportunity to be heard. Id. at 3, 6, 10. 3 On March 20, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Amended Petition. Pet. 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus when a petitioner “is in custody 6 in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 7 § 2241(c); Magana-Pizano v. I.N.S., 200 F.3d 603, 609 (9th Cir. 1999) (“28 U.S.C. § 2241 8 expressly permits the federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to aliens when those 9 aliens are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 10 States.’”). In federal habeas proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proving his case 11 by a preponderance of evidence. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 970 n.16 12 (9th Cir. 2004); Bellew v. Gunn, 532 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir. 1976) (citations omitted). 13 III. DISCUSSION 14 Petitioner alleges that his re-detention without notice or a hearing violates the Fifth 15 Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedures Act. Pet. at 3–7. 16 Respondents contend that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 17 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 8 at 2. Respondents also acknowledge that Petitioner was 18 released on parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5), but they are unable to confirm whether 19 Petitioner’s parole was formally terminated pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2) or not. Id. 20 Nevertheless, Respondents do not oppose the Amended Petition on the basis of this Court’s 21 prior decisions in similar situations, and thus, defer to the Court on the appropriate relief. 22 Id. at 3. 23 A. Detention Statue 24 The Court finds Petitioner is wrongfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). As a 25 noncitizen who, at the time of his detention, had been present in the United States for about 26 three years, Petitioner was and is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which states that a 27 noncitizen “may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the [noncitizen] 28 is to be removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). By contrast, 8 U.S.C 1 § 1225(b) applies to noncitizens arriving at the border or who very recently entered the 2 United States. See Beltran v. Noem, No. 25CV2650-LL-DEB, 2025 WL 3078837, at *4–7 3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025). As the Supreme Court explained, the government may “detain 4 certain aliens seeking admission into the country under §§ 1225(b)(1) and (b)(2),” while 5 § 1226(a) allows the government to “detain certain aliens already in the county pending 6 the outcome of removal proceedings.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) 7 (emphasis added). The Court adopts its reasoning stated in Beltran v. Noem on this issue. 8 Id. at *4–7. 9 B. Due Process Clause 10 The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, 11 or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. “It is well established that 12 the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” 13 Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003) (citing Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 14 (1993)). “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding 15 which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, 16 to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity 17 to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 18 (1950) (citations omitted). The Due Process Clause generally “requires some kind of a 19 hearing before the State deprives a person of liberty or property.” Zinermon v. Burch, 494 20 U.S. 113, 127 (1990). “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to 21 be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 22 319, 333 (1976) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 23 The Court finds that having been previously released on parole, Petitioner has a 24 protected liberty interest in remaining free from detention. “Even individuals who face 25 significant constraints on their liberty or over whose liberty the government wields 26 significant discretion retain a protected interest in their liberty.” Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. 27 Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (citations omitted). Although the initial decision to 28 detain or release an individual may be within the government’s discretion, “the 1 government’s decision to release an individual from custody creates ‘an implicit promise,’ 2 upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty ‘will be revoked 3 only if [they] fail[] to live up to the . . . conditions [of release].’” Id. (quoting Morrissey v. 4 Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972)) (alterations in original). 5 As Petitioner has a protected liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires 6 procedural protections before he can be deprived of that interest. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 7 334–35. To determine which procedures are constitutionally sufficient to satisfy the Due 8 Process Clause, the Court considers the following factors: (1) “the private interest that will 9 be affected by the official action”; (2) “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest 10 through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute 11 procedural safeguards”; and (3) “the [g]overnment’s interest, including the function 12 involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute 13 procedural requirement would entail.” Id. at 335. 14 The Court finds that all three factors support a finding that the government’s 15 revocation of Petitioner’s parole without notification, reasoning, or an opportunity to be 16 heard, denied Petitioner of his due process rights. First, as discussed above, Petitioner has 17 a significant liberty interest in remaining out of custody pursuant to his order of release. 18 See Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1032 (“Thus, even when ICE has the initial discretion to 19 detain or release a noncitizen pending removal proceedings, after that individual is released 20 from custody she has a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody.” (citations 21 omitted)). Freedom from detention is a fundamental part of due process protection. See 22 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 993 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[F]reedom from imprisonment 23 is at the ‘core of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.’” (quoting Foucha v. 24 Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992))). 25 Second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest is high as Petitioner’s 26 parole was revoked without providing him a reason for revocation or giving him an 27 opportunity to be heard. Since the initial determination that Petitioner should be released 28 on parole because he posed no danger to the community and was not a flight risk, there is 1 no evidence that these findings have changed. See Saravia v. Sessions, 280 2 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff’d sub nom. Saravia for A.H. v. Sessions, 3 905 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Release reflects a determination by the government that 4 the noncitizen is not a danger to the community or a flight risk.”). There is no indication 5 that Petitioner has failed to abide by the conditions of his release. “Once a noncitizen has 6 been released, the law prohibits federal agents from rearresting him merely because he is 7 subject to removal proceedings.” Id. “Rather, the federal agents must be able to present 8 evidence of materially changed circumstances—namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in 9 fact dangerous or has become a flight risk . . . .” Id. The risk of erroneous deprivation of 10 Petitioner’s liberty is high because neither the government nor Petitioner has had an 11 opportunity to determine whether there is any valid basis for his detention. Pinchi, 12 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1035 (citation omitted). It follows that the probable value of additional 13 procedural safeguards, such as notice and a pre-deprivation hearing, is also high. 14 Third, the government’s interest in detaining Petitioner without notice, reasoning, 15 and a hearing is low. See Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1036 (“[T]he government has 16 articulated no legitimate interest that would support arresting [petitioner] without a pre- 17 detention hearing.”); Alvarenga Matute v. Wofford, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1120, 1130 (E.D. Cal. 18 2025); Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d 963, 970 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“If the government 19 wishes to re-arrest [petitioner] at any point, it has the power to take steps toward doing so; 20 but its interest in doing so without a hearing is low.”). There is also no indication that 21 providing proper notice, reasoning, and a pre-deprivation hearing would be fiscally or 22 administratively burdensome on the government. See Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 1036 (“In 23 immigration court, custody hearings are routine and impose a minimal cost.” (quoting 24 Singh v. Andrews, 803 F. Supp. 3d 1035, 1048 (E.D. Cal. 2025))). 25 Therefore, because Respondents detained Petitioner by revoking his parole without 26 notice or a pre-deprivation hearing in violation of the Due Process Clause, his detention is 27 unlawful. See, e.g., Sanchez v. LaRose, No. 25-CV-2396-JES-MMP, 2025 WL 2770629, 28 at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025) (finding the petitioner’s parole was revoked without notice 1 and a hearing and without a showing of a change of circumstances, thus violating her due 2 process rights and rendering her detention unlawful). The proper remedy for the unlawful 3 detention is Petitioner’s immediate release subject only to the conditions of his preexisting 4 parole. See Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1156 (S.D. Cal. 2025) (finding DHS 5 violated the petitioner’s due process rights by revoking his parole without notice or a 6 hearing and ordering his immediate release); Sanchez, 2025 WL 2770629, at *5 (same); 7 Ortega, 415 F. Supp. 3d at 970 (ordering immediate release after the petitioner was 8 detained while out on bond without notice or pre-deprivation hearing). 9 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Amended Petition. 1 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons above, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. 13 2. Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody subject only 14 to the conditions of his preexisting parole. 15 3. Prior to any re-detention of Petitioner, he is entitled to notice of the reasons 16 for revocation of his parole and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral immigration 17 judge to determine whether detention is warranted. At such a hearing, the government shall 18 bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a 19 danger to the community or a risk of flight. See Martinez Hernandez v. Andrews, 20 No. 1:25-CV-01035 JLT HBK, 2025 WL 2495767, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2025) 21 (finding that the petitioner’s initial release “reflected a determination by the government 22 that the noncitizen is not a danger to the community or a flight risk” and so if the 23 government initiates re-detention, “it follows that the government should be required to 24 bear the burden of providing a justification for the re-detention”); Pinchi, 792 F. Supp. 3d 25 at 1038 (ordering that before the petitioner can be re-detained, she must be provided with 26 27 1 Because the Court reaches this decision on procedural due process grounds, it declines to 28 | pre-detention bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge and that she may not be 2 ||detained “unless the government demonstrates at such a bond hearing, by clear and 3 convincing evidence, that she 1s a flight risk or a danger to the community and that no 4 ||conditions other than her detention would be sufficient to prevent such harms’). 5 4. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Petitioner’s favor and close this 6 || case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: April 13, 2026 NO 9 DE 10 Honorable Linda Lopez 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28