Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

- 1 - 26cv5315
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
ERWIN JORDAN CASTRO VALDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-5315-BAS-JLB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 4)
Petitioner Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he was improperly detained after he was
paroled into the United States. (ECF No. 4.) The Government opposes, arguing that
Petitioner’s parole had expired and Petitioner is mandatorily detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(c). (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner files a Traverse arguing that Petitioner’s detention
without notice and an opportunity to be heard violates his due process rights. (ECF No. 8.)
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition and orders that
Petitioner be given an opportunity to be heard before an Immigration Judge as to whether
he should be mandatorily detained.
Case 3:26-cv-05315-BAS-JLB Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

- 2 - 26cv5315
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
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the writ
is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).
A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or she is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It applies
to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687
(2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he has
standing to pursue this Petition.
II. 	STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioner, a citizen of Cuba, was paroled into the United States via the CBP One
App on February 17, 2024. (ECF No. 7.) He was conditionally paroled into the United
States for two years, expiring 	February 16, 2026. (Id.) After February 16, 2026,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) continued to allow him to remain on
parole in the United States.
On June 23, 2026, Petitioner was arrested for Insurance Fraud, Grand Theft, and
Making a False Report of a Crime to Law Enforcement. (Id.) ICE filed an immigration
detainer on the same date, and on June 27, 2026, ICE took custody of Petitioner. (Id.)
Notably, Petitioner was never given notice as to why he had been detained, nor was he
given an opportunity to be heard as to whether his parole should be revoked based on this
arrest.
III. 	ANALYSIS
Petitioner’s re-detention without notice or an opportunity to be heard violates
Petitioner’s due process rights. Individuals released from custody, even where such release
is conditional, have a liberty interest in continued liberty. See, e.g., Morrissey v. Brewer,
408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972) (parolees); Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143, 150 (1997) (pre-
parolees); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973) (probationers). Thus, this Court
agrees with those courts that have held:
Case 3:26-cv-05315-BAS-JLB Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

- 3 - 26cv5315
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
[O]nce a noncitizen has been released, the law prohibits federal agents from
rearresting him merely because he is subject to removal proceedings. Rather,
the federal agents must be able to present evidence of materially changed
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
the noncitizen disputes the notion that changed circumstances justify his
rearrest, he is entitled to a prompt hearing before an Immigration Judge.
Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1176–77 (N.D. Cal. 2017); see also Kamalpreet
v. Singh, No. 26-cv-1211-LL-JLB, 2026 WL 622687, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026)
(“Although the initial decision to detain or release an individual may be within the
government’s discretion, the government’s decision to release an individual from custody
creates an implicit promise, upon which that individual may rely, that their liberty will be
revoked only if they fail to live up to the conditions of release.” (citation modified) (quoting
Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2025))).
The Government argues that Petitioner’s conditional parole expired on February 16,
2026. (ECF No. 7.) However, there is no sign that ICE attempted to revoke his parole and
re-detain him at that time. Instead, ICE gave every indication that it intended to continue
his parole in the United States while his asylum application was pending. Thus, Petitioner
continued to have a liberty interest after this date.
In addition, the Government argues that Petitioner is now mandatorily detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(1)(E)(ii). (Id.) But that does not excuse ICE from providing
notice to Petitioner as to the reason for his detention as well as an opportunity to be heard
as to whether his arrest warrants mandatory detention. If ICE believes circumstances have
changed, it must provide notice of these changed circumstances to Petitioner and provide
Petitioner an opportunity to be heard promptly before an Immigration Judge. Hence, the
Court GRANTS IN PART the Amended Petition. (ECF No. 4.)
//
//
//
//
Case 3:26-cv-05315-BAS-JLB Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

- 4 - 26cv5315
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
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ:
The Court ORDERS that Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez (A#244-402-597) be
given the opportunity for a hearing before an Immigration Judge as to whether
his recent arrest warrants mandatory detention or whether bond should be
granted. Such a hearing must occur within 14 days of today’s date. If no
hearing is held, Petitioner is ordered released under the same terms and
conditions as he was previously released on parole.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 13, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-05315-BAS-JLB Document 9 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4