Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WISKENCIA DESULMA, Case No. 26-cv-01324-BAS-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 14 DIRECTOR, OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Wiskencia Desulma filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 19 claiming he was improperly detained months after he was paroled into the United States 20 pursuant to the CBP One app. (ECF No. 1.) Although the Government opposes the request, 21 it acknowledges that the Court’s prior rulings support release. (ECF No. 5.) For the 22 reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and orders that Petitioner be 23 released on the same terms and conditions as he was previously released. 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 26 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 27 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 28 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 1 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 2 applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 3 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he 4 has standing to pursue this Petition. 5 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6 Petitioner, a citizen of Haiti, entered the United States on January 19, 2025, using 7 the CBP One app to seek asylum. (ECF No. 1.) He was released on humanitarian parole. 8 (Id.) On October 31, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) arrested 9 Petitioner without notice or an opportunity to be heard and without any changed 10 circumstances with respect to his flight risk or danger to the community. (Id.) Petitioner 11 has no criminal record and has attended all scheduled immigration hearings. (Id.) 12 Petitioner seeks immediate release or a bond hearing. 13 III. ANALYSIS 14 Individuals released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a 15 liberty interest in continued liberty. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 16 (1972) (parolees); Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v. 17 Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). Thus, this Court agrees with those 18 courts that have held: 19 [O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, 20 the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed 21 circumstances—namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. And if 22 the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his 23 rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge. 24 Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176–77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet 25 v. Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) 26 (“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the 27 government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody 28 creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be 1 revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting 2 || Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))). 3 Because DHS released Petitioner on humanitarian parole, finding he was not a flight 4 ||risk or a danger to the community in January 2025, and because there is no evidence that 5 ||those circumstances have changed, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same 6 ||conditions as he was initially released. If DHS believes circumstances have changed, it 7 || must provide notice of these changed circumstances to Petitioner and provide Petitioner an 8 || opportunity to be heard promptly before an Immigration Judge. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons stated above, Petitioner Wiskencia Desulma’s Petition for Writ of 11 Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. (ECF No. 1.) Accordingly, the Court issues the following 12 || writ: 13 The Court ORDERS Wiskencia Desulma (A#244-897-386) be released on the same 14 terms and conditions as he was ordered released in January 2025. 15 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 1g || DATED: March 13, 2026 Diphan L 19 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 □□□