Alexi Ayala Perez v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Cuban national detained by ICE after being paroled into the United States. The court granted the petition and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner, finding that his detention violated federal regulations requiring written notice to terminate parole and the Due Process Clause.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordering the immediate release of the Petitioner from custody.“For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the request for a writ of habeas corpus and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody under the same conditions of release that existed immediately prior to his May 23, 2025 re-detention.” | agree with court The order relies on the undisputed fact that the petitioner was paroled and subsequently detained without the written notice required by 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(5) to terminate that parole. The court correctly identifies that the failure to provide the statutorily required notice renders the detention unlawful under the regulations. Additionally, the court applies the Due Process Clause, citing established Supreme Court precedent (Mathews v. Eldridge and Morrissey v. Brewer) to support the conclusion that a liberty interest was created by the initial parole, which cannot be revoked without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Because the respondents did not contest the lack of notice, the legal conclusion that the detention was illegal follows directly from the cited regulations and constitutional principles. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for § 2241 habeas relief, applies the specific regulation governing the termination of parole (8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(5)), and correctly applies the Due Process Clause using binding Supreme Court precedent. The court notes that the respondents did not contest the factual premise (lack of written notice), making the legal conclusion straightforward. The order addresses the specific claims raised by the petitioner and rejects the respondents' alternative argument regarding bond hearings by finding the detention itself unlawful.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXI AYALA PEREZ, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03777-CAB-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING HABEAS 13 v. PETITION 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., [Doc. No. 1] 15 Respondents. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Alexi Ayala Perez’s (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] Petitioner claims 19 that he is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of the 20 Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fifth Amendment, and regulations governing the 21 termination of parole. [Id. at 2, 12–14.] He principally seeks immediate release. [Id. at 22 15.] Respondents filed a response to the Petition, [Doc. No. 4], and Petitioner filed a 23 traverse, [Doc. No. 5]. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the request for a 24 writ of habeas corpus and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from 25 custody under the same conditions of release that existed immediately prior to his May 23, 26 2025 re-detention. 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner is a Cuban national who presented at the San Ysidro port of entry on June 3 3, 2024 with an appointment via the Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) One mobile 4 application. [Petition at 5.] He was inspected and paroled into the United States under 5 8 C.F.R. § 212(d)(5)(A). [Id.] He was issued a Form I-94 valid through June 2, 2026, and 6 later issued an Employment Authorization Document valid through June 3, 2026. [Id. at 7 5–6.] On May 23, 2025, Petitioner appeared for a master calendar hearing in his case and 8 was detained by ICE when exiting the hearing. [Id. at 6.] Respondents do not refute or 9 supplement any of Petitioner’s facts. [See generally Doc. No. 4.] 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of a petitioner’s custody and seeks 12 to secure release from that illegal custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may 13 grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the 14 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” The petitioner bears the burden of 15 demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-BJC- 16 BJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025). 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 Petitioner argues that his detention violates 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(5) and his Due 19 Process rights because his parole has never been revoked. Respondents do not engage with 20 Petitioner’s claims. Instead, Respondents state that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1226(a) and under the final judgment in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-1873- 22 SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) is entitled to a bond hearing. 23 [Doc. No. 4.] The Court agrees with Petitioner. 24 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(5) provides that parole shall be terminated “upon 25 accomplishment of the purpose for which parole was authorized or when in the opinion of 26 one of the officials listed in paragraph (a) of this section, neither humanitarian reasons nor 27 public benefit warrants the continued presence of the alien in the United States, parole shall 28 be terminated upon written notice to the alien[.]” Petitioner asserts, and Respondents do 1 || not contest, that he has never received any written notice revoking his parole. [Petition at 2 || 12, 14.] The Court therefore finds that ICE violated 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(5) by detaining 3 || Petitioner without at least written notice revoking his parole. 4 Additionally, because Petitioner was previously released on parole, he possessed a 5 || protected liberty interest in remaining free from detention that could not be revoked absent 6 ||notice. When an individual is released from custody, a liberty interest is created which 7 requires notice and a hearing before that individual may be taken back into custody. See 8 || Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-07492-RFL, 2025 WL 2578207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 9 || Sept. 5, 2025) (listing cases); see also Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, □□□□□□□ 10 ||(N.D. Cal. 2025). Petitioner’s sudden re-detention without notice, an individualized 11 determination, or an opportunity to be heard violates the Due Process Clause. See Mathews 12 Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard 13 || before deprivation of a protected liberty interest); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 14 ||(1972) (recognizing that revocation of parole inflicts a “grievous loss” and requires 15 |}minimum due process protections). 16 CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s request for a writ of habeas corpus is 18 || GRANTED such that the Court ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner 19 custody under the same conditions of release that existed immediately prior to his 20 || May 23, 2025 re-detention. 21 The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 22 Itis SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: January 14, 2026 ( (6 — 24 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28