Raj v. LaRose et al

26-cv-369
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KISHOR RAJ,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, PATRICK
DIVVER, KRISTI NOEM, and
PAMELA BONDI,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00369-BTM-AHG
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
[ECF NO. 1]
Pending before the Court is Kishor Raj’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the petition and
orders Raj’s immediate release from custody.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Raj arrived in the United States on December 1, 2022, to seek asylum. (ECF No. 1
(“Pet.”), 5.) 	On December 4, he was released on parole into the country. (ECF No. 9-1,
Ex. A (“Decl.”), at 2; ECF No. 1-2 (“IJ Ruling”).) Raj later obtained a work permit and
began working as a delivery driver. (Decl., 2.) While driving a route in Arizona on March
19, 2025, Raj was detained by the Respondents. (See id. at 2.) The arresting officers did
not provide Raj paperwork that explained why he was being detained. (Id. at 2.)
Case 3:26-cv-00369-BTM-AHG Document 10 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
26-cv-369
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
After Raj requested that the Respondents reevaluate his custody under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1236(d), an immigration judge reviewed his case on July 25, 2025, and denied his
request. (IJ Ruling.) Raj remains in custody at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. (Decl.,
2.) On January 9, 2026, Raj petitioned the Court for the writ of habeas corpus. (Pet., 8.)
II. 	DISCUSSION
Raj seeks relief on two grounds. First, he argues that the Respondents violated his
Due Process rights by not explaining why he has been detained. (See Pet., 4.) Second, he
argues that he was unlawfully denied bond. (See Pet., 5.)
The Respondents concede the second claim. They “acknowledge that Petitioner is
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is entitled to an order from this Court directing a
bond hearing be held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).” 	(ECF No. 7, at 2.) 	Nonetheless,
Raj claims that the violation of his Due Process rights warrants “immediate release
outright, without a bond hearing.” (ECF No. 9 (“Traverse”), at 2.)
The Court agrees. 	Because the Respondents improperly revoked Raj’s parole and
violated his Due Process rights, Raj is entitled to release on the first claim without a bond
hearing.
A. 	Due Process
Raj challenges the violation of his Due Process rights on two fronts. First, that the
Respondents detained him “without due process of law” under the U.S. Constitution.
(Traverse, 3.) 	Second, that the Respondents violated the Administrative Procedure Act
(“APA”) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) by improperly revoking his
parole before detaining him. The first argument was addressed in Araujo v. LaRose, No.
25-cv-2942-BTM-MMP, 2025 WL 3278016 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025), and the second was
addressed in Arias v. LaRose, No. 25-cv-02595-BTM-MMP, 2025 WL 3295385 (S.D. Cal.
Nov. 25, 2025). Both decisions are adopted and applied here. The Court begins with the
statutory argument.
An agency’s action may survive review only if the agency sufficiently explains the
action, which includes demonstrating a “rational connection between the facts found and
Case 3:26-cv-00369-BTM-AHG Document 10 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
26-cv-369
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the choice made.” 	Altera Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 926 F.3d
1061, 1080 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). Additionally, a government agency is required to follow
its own regulations. 	United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268
(1954). 	Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, noncitizens1 at the border may be
released into the country on humanitarian parole. 	See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). 	Under
the governing regulation, humanitarian parole may be terminated only if the purpose of
parole is accomplished, or humanitarian reasons and the public benefit no longer warrant
parole. 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e). Furthermore, the noncitizen must receive written notice of the
parole’s termination. Id.
Here, the Respondents failed to follow the statutory and regulatory provisions. The
Respondents did not explain their reason to detain Raj besides claiming that the laws had
changed and that he was “too close to the border.” 	(Decl., 2.) 	These are conclusory
statements 	that 	do 	not 	connect 	their 	decision 	to 	detain 	with 	Raj’s 	circumstances.
Furthermore, Raj did not receive written notice of the parole’s termination. 	This is
sufficient to find that his parole was improperly revoked under the INA.2
The record is unclear whether Raj was granted humanitarian parole or a different
parole under the INA. Regardless, the Respondents
failed to demonstrate that their revocation of [Petitioner’s] parole was the
product of reasoning decisionmaking. By denying [Petitioner] “the required
procedure before purporting to terminate [his] parole, Respondents acted
arbitrarily and capriciously and violated the APA.” That revocation action
caused [Petitioner] to be improperly detained.
2025 WL 3295385, at *4 (quoting Y-Z-L-H v. Bostock, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1146 (D. Or.
2025)). Under at least the APA, Raj is entitled to habeas relief.
1 This order uses the term “noncitizen” as equivalent to the statutory term “alien.” 	8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(3); see Barton v. Barr, 590 U.S. 222, 226 n.2 (2020).
2 The record is inconclusive on whether Raj’s asylum claim remains pending. 	If so, then the
purpose of his parole has also not been fulfilled.
Case 3:26-cv-00369-BTM-AHG Document 10 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
26-cv-369
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Moving to the constitutional argument, the Fifth Amendment entitles noncitizens “to
due process of law in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993).
Due Process for a parole revocation requires “(1) a decision by an appropriate official on
whether the purpose of parole has been served; (2) written notice of the reasons for the
termination; and (3) an opportunity to rebut the reasons given for the termination.” Araujo,
2025 WL 3278016, at *2; see also Noori v. LaRose, 807 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1165 (S.D. Cal.
2025).
Here, the Respondents failed to revoke Raj’s parole according to due process of law.
The record does not demonstrate that a statutorily authorized official made the decision to
revoke Raj’s parole. 	But as discussed earlier, the Respondents did not provide written
notice of their reasons for revoking Raj’s parole. Raj has also not received an opportunity
to respond to the revocation of his parole. 	The Respondents violated Raj’s right to Due
Process independent of his statutory claims.
Because the Respondents violated Raj’s Due Process rights under the APA and the
U.S. Constitution, the writ must issue to release him from custody.
B. 	Bond Hearing
Because the Court grants the petition on the first claim, Raj’s claim that his bond
hearing was unlawfully denied need not be reached. Count Two of the petition is dismissed
without prejudice as moot.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Case 3:26-cv-00369-BTM-AHG Document 10 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
26-cv-369
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. 	CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED on the first claim without
prejudice to other remedies the Respondents may pursue. The writ is ISSUED. 	The
Respondents shall immediately release Raj from custody on his preexisting conditions.
The second claim is dismissed without prejudice as moot. The parties shall file a statement
as to the satisfaction of the writ by March 4, 2026, at 5 p.m. The Court retains jurisdiction
to enforce the writ.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2026
___________________________
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00369-BTM-AHG Document 10 Filed 03/03/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5