Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 JOSE DANIEL PARRA MOZO, Case No. 26-cv-01251-BAS-BLM 13 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 14 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 15 JEREMY CASEY, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 Petitioner Jose Daniel Parra Mozo filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he was improperly detained after he was paroled 21 into the United States. (ECF No. 1.) The Government filed a Return (ECF No. 4), and 22 Petitioner filed a Reply (ECF No. 5). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS 23 the Petition and orders that Petitioner be released on the same terms and conditions as he 24 was previously released. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 27 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 28 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 1 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 2 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 3 applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 4 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he 5 has standing to pursue this Petition. 6 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7 Petitioner, a citizen of Venezuela, entered the United States on September 28, 2022, 8 seeking asylum. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 3.) He was released after Border Patrol determined he 9 was not a flight risk or danger to the community. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 3.) He was given work 10 authorization through 2029. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 5.) On December 3, 2025, the Department of 11 Homeland Security (“DHS”) re-detained Petitioner without notice or an opportunity to be 12 heard and without any changed circumstances with respect to his flight risk or danger to 13 the community. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 9.) Petitioner seeks immediate release or a bond hearing. 14 III. ANALYSIS 15 Although the Government seems to agree that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing, 16 it bases its concession on its belief that this Court has ruled that it agrees with Maldonado 17 Bautista v. Santacruz, __ F. Supp. 3d___, 2025 WL 3713982 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), 18 that an individual in Petitioner’s circumstances is entitled to discretionary release under 8 19 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 7.) However, the Maldonado Bautista class applied only to 20 individuals who entered without inspection and were not apprehended upon arrival. Id. 21 Petitioner was apprehended at the border upon arrival, so he does not appear to be part of 22 the Maldonado Bautista class, nor does he appear to be entitled to discretionary release 23 under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).1 24 25 26 1 The Court notes additionally that the Maldonado Bautista class has been limited to the Central 27 District of California and stayed with respect to all other potential class members. Maldonado Bautista v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). Hence, Petitioner is not a member of 28 1 Nonetheless, this Court finds Petitioner’s re-detention without notice or an 2 opportunity to be heard and without noticeably changed circumstances violates Petitioner’s 3 due process rights. 4 Individuals released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a 5 liberty interest in continued liberty. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 6 (1972) (parolees); Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v. 7 Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). Thus, this Court agrees with those 8 courts that have held: 9 [O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, 10 the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed 11 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 12 the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his 13 rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge. 14 Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176–77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet 15 v. Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) 16 (“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the 17 government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody 18 creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be 19 revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting 20 Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))). 21 Because DHS released Petitioner, finding he was not a flight risk or a danger to the 22 community in September 2022, and because there is no evidence that those circumstances 23 have changed, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same conditions as he was 24 initially released. If DHS believes circumstances have changed, it must provide notice of 25 these changed circumstances to Petitioner and provide Petitioner an opportunity to be heard 26 promptly before an Immigration Judge. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 27 // 28 // 1 |}IV. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 3 The Court ORDERS Respondents to release Jose Daniel Parra Mozo on the 4 same terms and conditions as he was previously released in September 2022. 5 || The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. . (yatta Bahar g || DATED: March 16, 2026 9 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A.