Christian Nteh Samgwaa v. Todd Blanche, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a non-citizen who was re-detained by ICE after being paroled into the United States to pursue an asylum application. The court granted the petition, finding that the re-detention violated due process because the government failed to prove materially changed circumstances, and ordered the petitioner's release on the original terms and conditions of his parole.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and orders that Petitioner be released on the same terms and conditions as he was previously released.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the due process principles established in Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, which require notice and a hearing before revoking the liberty of a person on parole or probation. The court properly noted that the government bore the burden of proving 'materially changed circumstances' to justify re-detention after an initial release. Because the government alleged missed check-ins but provided no evidence to support this claim, while the petitioner provided a declaration stating he attended all appointments, the court's finding that the government failed to meet its burden is supported by the record recited in the order. The remedy of release on original terms is consistent with the finding that the re-detention was unlawful. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for habeas corpus relief in the context of immigration detention and parole revocation. It applies the due process requirements from Supreme Court precedent (Morrissey, Gagnon) to the specific facts of the case, where the government failed to provide evidence supporting its claim of missed check-ins. The court's reliance on district court cases (Saravia, Kamalpreet, Pinchi) is consistent with the established legal principle that re-detention after release requires proof of changed circumstances. The reasoning directly addresses the motion and the record presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTIAN NTEH SAMGWAA, Case No. 26-cv-03324-BAS-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 7) 14 TODD BLANCHE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Christian Nteh Samgwaa filed an Amended Habeas Petition pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he was improperly detained after he was paroled into the United 20 States. (ECF No. 7.) The Government responded that a bond hearing is appropriate. (ECF 21 No. 10.) Petitioner filed a Traverse arguing that release under the original conditions of 22 his parole, and not a bond hearing, is the appropriate remedy. (ECF No. 11.) For the 23 reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Petition and orders that Petitioner be 24 released on the same terms and conditions as he 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 writ 28 is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 1 A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in 2 custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies 3 to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 4 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he has 5 standing to pursue this Petition. 6 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7 Petitioner, a citizen of Cameroon, entered the United States on February 19, 2023, 8 seeking asylum. (ECF No. 7.) On February 22, 2023, he was paroled into the United States 9 to enable him to pursue his asylum application. (Id.) According to Petitioner, he attended 10 all court hearings and check-in appointments. (Id., Ex. A at ¶ 3.) He received a work permit 11 and a Social Security number. (ECF No. 7.) He has no criminal history. (Id.) 12 On October 30, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) re-detained 13 Petitioner without notice or an opportunity for Petitioner to be heard. (Id.) Petitioner says 14 ICE refused to tell him why he had been re-detained, although ICE later said he had 15 committed a “violation” without specifying what that violation was. (Id.) Petitioner 16 received no paperwork, ICE conducted no informal interview, and it was not clear if ICE 17 was revoking his parole and, if so, why. (Id.) 18 After his arrest, Petitioner was transferred from immigration custody in Maryland to 19 New Jersey, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. (Id.) In Florida, an Immigration Judge ordered 20 Petitioner removed, but Petitioner has filed an appeal of the order, which is currently 21 pending. (Id.) He was then transferred to immigration custody in the Southern District of 22 California. (Id.) 23 The Government now responds that ICE detained Petitioner for failure to appear at 24 two of his check-in appointments. (ECF No. 10.) However, the Government provides no 25 proof supporting this allegation that would counter Petitioner’s claim that he appeared at 26 all immigration appointments. (ECF No. 7, Ex. A at ¶ 3.) There is no dispute that Petitioner 27 did appear for an immigration appointment on October 30, 2025, after receiving notice of 28 1 this check-in appointment the day before. (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner seeks immediate release 2 on the same conditions as his previous parole. 3 III. ANALYSIS 4 Petitioner’s re-detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard and without 5 noticeably changed circumstances violates Petitioner’s due process rights. Individuals 6 released from custody, even where such release is conditional, have a liberty interest in 7 continued liberty. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (parolees); 8 Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-parolees); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 9 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). Thus, this Court agrees with those courts that have held: 10 [O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather, 11 the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed 12 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 13 the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his 14 rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge. 15 Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176–77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet 16 v. Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026) 17 (“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the 18 government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody 19 creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be 20 revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting 21 Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))). 22 Because DHS released Petitioner upon finding he was not a flight risk or a danger 23 to the community in February 2023, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same 24 conditions as he was initially released. Although the Government claims that circumstances 25 have changed—namely, that Petitioner missed two check-in appointments—the 26 Government provides no proof that this is the case. And Petitioner files a declaration 27 indicating that he attended all immigration check-ins and appointments. (ECF No. 7, Ex. 28 A at ¶ 3.) If ICE believes circumstances have changed, it must provide notice of these 1 |}changed circumstances to Petitioner and provide Petitioner an opportunity to be heard 2 promptly before an Immigration Judge. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Amended Petition. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 5 The Court ORDERS that Petitioner Christian Nteh Samgwaa (A# 246-572- 6 927) be released on the same terms and conditions as he was previously released in February 2023. 7 8 The Clerk of Court shall close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. (yi. (PDwhark 11 || DATED: June 25, 2026 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 12 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A.