Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.E., Case No. 26-cv-03353-BAS-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 14 TODD BLANCHE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner J.E. filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he has 19 been improperly detained in immigration custody. (ECF No. 1.) The Government filed a 20 response acknowledging “that Petitioner is entitled to be released from custody subject to 21 conditions of supervision.” (ECF No. 8.) Petitioner filed a Traverse (ECF No. 9.) For the 22 reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and orders that Petitioner be 23 released under DHS supervision. 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 writ 27 is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 28 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 1 custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies 2 to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 3 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he has 4 standing to pursue this Petition. 5 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6 On September 19, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) 7 apprehended Petitioner, a Mexican citizen. (ECF No. 1, at ¶¶ 10, 19.) DHS released 8 Petitioner under an order of supervision. (Id.) Petitioner received lawful employment 9 authorization. (Id. ¶ 20.) He has since had two U.S. citizen children. (Id.) 10 On September 12, 2025, he received a positive credible fear determination. (Id. ¶ 11 21.) Nonetheless, on December 18, 2025, when he appeared for a monitoring appointment, 12 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took him into custody and escorted him 13 to Mexico. (Id. ¶¶ 23–24.) Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Ninth Circuit 14 alleging he had been unlawfully removed. (Id. ¶ 25.) Customs and Border Protection 15 coordinated with Petitioner’s counsel to have Petitioner returned to the United States. (Id.) 16 On May 20, 2026, he was paroled back into the United States but was immediately detained 17 by ICE. (Id. ¶ 28.) 18 Petitioner argues his detention violates both his substantive and procedural due 19 process rights and requests immediate release under the same order of supervision. The 20 Government admits it is “unable to ascertain sufficient facts at this time to establish 21 Petitioner’s supervised release was revoked according” to appropriate DHS procedures. 22 (ECF No. 8.) Therefore, the Government “acknowledge[s] that Petitioner is entitled to be 23 released from custody subject to conditions of supervision.” 24 III. ANALYSIS 25 Petitioner’s re-detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard and without 26 noticeably changed circumstances violates Petitioner’s due process rights. Individuals 27 released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a liberty interest in 28 continued liberty. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (parolees); 1 || Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 2 || 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). Thus, this Court agrees with those courts that have held: 3 [O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from 4 rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed 5 circumstances—namely, evidence that the noncitizen is in fact dangerous or 6 has become a flight risk, or is now subject to a final order of removal. And if the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his 7 rearrest, he 1s entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge. 8 || Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176-77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet 9 Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) 10 ||(“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the 11 || government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody 12 creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be 13 ||revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting 14 || Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))). 15 Because DHS released Petitioner upon finding he was not a flight risk or a danger 16 the community in 2014, and because there is no evidence those circumstances have 17 || changed, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same conditions as he was initially 18 ||released. If DHS believes circumstances have changed, it must provide notice of these 19 ||changed circumstances to Petitioner and provide Petitioner an opportunity to be heard 20 || promptly before an Immigration Judge. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition. 21 CONCLUSION 22 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 23 The Court ORDERS that Petitioner J.E. (A# 205-141-724) be released on the same terms and conditions as he was previously released in 2014. 25 The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 DATED: June 16, 2026 ~ FZ | f 28 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge _, United States District Court