Delfin-Ricardo v. Bondi

1
26-cv-136-RSH-BJW
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
ENYERT DELFIN-RICARDO,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-136-RSH-BJW
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On January 8, 2026, petitioner Enyert Delfin-Ricardo, proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On January
13, 2026, the Court provisionally appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc.
(“FDSDI”) to represent Petitioner. ECF No. 2. On January 26, 2026, with both Petitioner
and FDSDI having accepted the representation, Petitioner filed his Amended Petition. ECF
No. 6.
The Court thereafter issued a briefing schedule on the merits. ECF No. 7. On
February 6, 2026, Respondents filed a return. ECF No. 8.
As set forth below, the Court grants the Amended Petition.
//
//
Case 3:26-cv-00136-RSH-BJW Document 9 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
26-cv-136-RSH-BJW
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. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner’s declaration states as follows. Petitioner, a citizen of Cuba, first came to
the United States on August 13, 2021. ECF No. 6-1 ¶ 1. He was taken into custody,
interviewed for purposes of determining whether he was seeking asylum, and released on
August 15, 2021. Id. ¶ 1. He thereafter filed an application for asylum, which remains
pending. Id. ¶ 2. On October 7, 2025, in connection with a check-in appointment with U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in Houston, Texas, Petitioner was
rearrested. Id. ¶ 4. Petitioner “was told that the president did not want [him] in the country,”
but did not receive any other explanation of the reason for his rearrest or detention. Id. ¶ 5.
Petitioner states that his release on August 13, 2021 was pursuant to a grant of
humanitarian parole pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). See ECF No. 6 at 2, 4; see also
ECF No. 1-3 (order of release). Petitioner claims that Respondents’ revocation of that
parole, and Petitioner’s resulting detention, violate applicable federal regulations, the
Administrative Procedure Act, and Petitioner’s right to due process. ECF No. 6 at 2-10.
Petitioner seeks his immediate release on the terms of supervision previously imposed. Id.
at 11. Respondents have not disputed any of the foregoing. See ECF No. 8.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	ANALYSIS
Petitioner contends that the revocation of his humanitarian parole violated applicable
federal regulations. The statutory provision relating to humanitarian parole states as
follows:
The Secretary of Homeland Security may, except as provided in
subparagraph (B) or in section 1184(f) of this title, in his discretion
Case 3:26-cv-00136-RSH-BJW Document 9 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
26-cv-136-RSH-BJW
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
parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he
may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian
reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission
to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded
as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall,
in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been served
the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which
he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in
the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the
United States.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). With respect to termination of that parole, federal regulations
provide as follows:
(e) Termination of parole—
(1) Automatic. Parole shall be automatically terminated without written
notice (i) upon the departure from the United States of the alien, or, (ii)
if not departed, at the expiration of the time for which parole was
authorized, and in the latter case the alien shall be processed in
accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section except that no written
notice shall be required.
(2)(i) On notice. In cases not covered by paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, upon accomplishment of the purpose for which parole was
authorized or when in the opinion of one of the officials listed in
paragraph (a) of this section, neither humanitarian reasons nor public
benefit warrants the continued presence of the alien in the United
States, parole shall be terminated upon written notice to the alien and
he or she shall be restored to the status that he or she had at the time of
parole. When a charging document is served on the alien, the charging
document will constitute written notice of termination of parole, unless
otherwise 	specified. 	Any 	further 	inspection 	or 	hearing 	shall 	be
conducted under section 235 or 240 of the Act and this chapter, or any
order of exclusion, deportation, or removal previously entered shall be
executed. If the exclusion, deportation, or removal order cannot be
executed within a reasonable time, the alien shall again be released on
parole unless in the opinion of the official listed in paragraph (a) of this
section the public interest requires that the alien be continued in
custody.
Case 3:26-cv-00136-RSH-BJW Document 9 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
26-cv-136-RSH-BJW
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
8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e) (emphasis added).
Petitioner asserts that here, there is no evidence of a determination that the purpose
of humanitarian parole had been accomplished, or that neither humanitarian reasons nor
public benefit warrant Petitioner’s continued presence in the United States. ECF No. 6 at
3-4. Petitioner further asserts that he was not given adequate notice of the termination. Id.
at 4-5. Respondents have not disputed these assertions, or otherwise claimed that DHS
complied with 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e) in Petitioner’s case.
Government agencies are required to follow their own regulations. United States ex
rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 268 (1954); Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v.
Norton, 340 F.3d 835, 852 (9th Cir. 2003). Courts have determined, in cases where DHS
fails to follow its own regulations in revoking humanitarian parole, that the resulting
detention is unlawful and the petitioner’s release should be ordered. See Y-Z-L-H v.
Bostock, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1145-46 (D. Or. 2025); Noori v. LaRose, --- F. Supp. 3d -
--, 2025 WL 2800149, at *13 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2025); Salazar v. Casey, No. 25-CV-2784
JLS (VET), 2025 WL 3063629, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025). This Court reaches the
same result.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondents are ordered to
release petitioner Enyert Delfin-Ricardo from custody within one (1) day of the date of
this order, on the same conditions previously imposed or on such other conditions as may
be warranted for release on recognizance. The hearing date set for February 19, 2026 is
VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00136-RSH-BJW Document 9 Filed 02/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4