Evanison Dominique v. Christopher J. Larose, ET AL.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Haitian national on humanitarian parole who was detained by ICE. The court granted the petition, finding that the detention violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and ordered the petitioner's release within 24 hours.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted“Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge factors to determine that the detention violated procedural due process. It relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock to establish that the mandatory detention statute (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)) does not apply to unadmitted aliens in the interior, and noted that Respondents failed to explain why Bostock did not apply. Given the lack of a valid statutory basis for mandatory detention and the failure to provide a pre-deprivation hearing, the due process violation is supported by the cited authorities. |
Ordering release of Petitioner within 24 hours“Respondents shall release Petitioner within 24 hours of the filing of this Order.” | agree with court The court ordered release on the same terms as the initial humanitarian parole. This is a standard remedy in habeas corpus cases where detention is found to be unlawful, ensuring the petitioner is restored to their status prior to the unlawful detention. |
Injunction against re-detention without due process“Respondents shall not re-detain Petitioner: (1) without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker... or (2) in the absence of a material change in circumstances justifying his detention.” | agree with court The court cited Alva Alva v. Kaiser to support the injunction, stating that such relief is necessary to prevent the government from simply re-detaining the petitioner in the same manner, which would render the habeas relief meaningless. This is a recognized aspect of habeas corpus relief. |
Request for attorneys' fees denied without prejudice“Accordingly, the request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court allowed the petitioner to file a formal application for fees within 30 days. This is a procedural step to ensure fees are awarded based on a proper motion with supporting documentation, rather than a summary request in the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (Mathews v. Eldridge), applies the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock) to distinguish the statutory basis for detention, and notes the Respondents' failure to rebut the applicability of that precedent. The relief ordered is consistent with the purpose of habeas corpus and supported by cited district court authority.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EVANISON DOMINIQUE, Case No. 26-cv-4948-RFL Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, ET AL., Respondents.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release on the conditions of his humanitarian parole. (Dkt. No. 1 (the “Petition”).) As averred in the Petition, and as Respondents do not dispute, Petitioner is originally from Haiti. (See id. ¶ 19.) On February 24, 2024, he presented for an appointment with CBP at the San Ysidro Port of Entry and was granted humanitarian parole. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) That parole necessarily reflected a determination that Petitioner posed neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. See Chang v. Mullin, 26- cv02218-JLS, 2026 WL 1045679, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2026). Since being paroled, Petitioner has “requested and received his employment authorization” and has complied with “the law and his obligations as an individual lawfully present with humanitarian parole and an asylum seeker.” (Petition ¶¶ 10, 15.) On August 27, 2026, Petitioner was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody and eventually transferred to the Imperial Regional Detention Facility in San Diego, California. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 14.) He now seeks his immediate release or a bond hearing on the basis that his detention violates, among other things, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner’s procedural due process challenge is governed by the factors set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). See Faizi v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-02974-JO, 2026 WL 1112035, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026). In responding to the Petition, Respondents argue only “that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under [8 U.S.C.] § 1225(b)(2).” (See Dkt. No. 4 at 2.) This provision applies to “unadmitted aliens entering the United States at the border” and not to “unadmitted aliens present in the interior of the country” like Petitioner. See Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, 183 F.4th 1160, 1193 (9th Cir. 2026). Respondents argue that Bostock does not apply to Petitioner, but they do not explain why that is the case.1 (Dkt. No. 4 at 2.) Thus, the Mathews factors weigh in favor of finding that Petitioner’s re-detention violated his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process. See, e.g., Lozano Castano v. LaRose, No. 26-cv-01747-RBM, 2026 WL 1194854, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. May 1, 2026). Respondents acknowledge that previous decisions from other judges of this Court have granted petitions for writ of habeas corpus on similar facts, and they accordingly “do[] not oppose the petition and defer[] to the Court on the appropriate relief.” (Dkt. No. 4 at 2–3.) Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED. “When a district court grants a writ of habeas corpus it may dispose of the matter as law and justice require. To ensure that Petitioner’s release pursuant to the Court’s [] order is not rendered meaningless, it is necessary to enjoin the government from simply re-detaining Petitioner in the same manner. As a result, the relief ordered below falls within the core of habeas.” Alva Alva v. Kaiser, No. 25-cv-06676-RFL, 2026 WL 1910135, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2026) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The Court, therefore, ORDERS as follows: • Respondents shall release Petitioner within 24 hours of the filing of this Order. The release shall be on the same terms and conditions as Petitioner’s initial grant of humanitarian parole in 2024. • Respondents shall not re-detain Petitioner: (1) without notice and a pre- deprivation hearing before a neutral decisionmaker in which an individualized determination is made that he poses a flight risk or danger to public safety such that he must be detained; or (2) in the absence of a material change in 1 Respondents describe various statutory bases for parole, but state that they “have insufficient information regarding termination of [Petitioner’s] parole.” (Dkt. No. 4 at 2.) circumstances justifying his detention. Petitioner also requests an award of attorneys’ fees. The Court will consider an application for reasonable fees that is filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Accordingly, the request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall issue judgment in favor of Petitioner and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2026 EE RITA F. LIN United States District Judge