Evanison Dominique v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a Haitian national lawfully present in the United States on humanitarian parole who was detained by ICE. The court granted the petition, ordering the petitioner's release within 24 hours and enjoining the government from re-detaining him without a pre-deprivation hearing or a material change in circumstances.
| 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 petitioner's re-detention violated his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process. The court relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) applies to unadmitted aliens entering at the border, not those in the interior. Since the petitioner was in the interior and Respondents failed to explain why Bostock did not apply, the mandatory detention statute did not apply, and the due process violation was established. |
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 grant, citing Alva Alva v. Kaiser for the proposition that enjoining re-detention is within the core of habeas relief to ensure the writ is not rendered meaningless. |
Enjoining re-detention without pre-deprivation hearing or material change in circumstances“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 circumstances justifying his detention.” | agree with court The court imposed specific conditions on any future detention to protect the petitioner's due process rights, requiring an individualized determination of flight risk or danger to public safety or a material change in circumstances. |
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 separate application for reasonable fees within 30 days of the entry of judgment, which is a standard procedural approach to fee requests in habeas cases. |
The order itself: sound — The court correctly applied the Mathews v. Eldridge factors and relied on the binding Ninth Circuit precedent in Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock to determine that the mandatory detention statute did not apply to the petitioner. The court also correctly cited district court precedent to support its conclusion that the re-detention violated due process and that enjoining re-detention is appropriate habeas relief. The reasoning is sound and directly addresses the motion with the right authorities.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EVANISON DOMINIQUE, Case No. 26-cv-4948-RFL Petitioner, AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS v. CORPUS 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 Otay Mesa Detention Center 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.’ (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: e 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. e 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 ' 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 4, 2026 AE RITA F. LIN United States District Judge