Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

- 1 - 26cv1251
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
JOSE DANIEL PARRA MOZO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEREMY CASEY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-01251-BAS-BLM
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1)
Petitioner Jose Daniel Parra Mozo filed a 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. 1.) 	The Government filed a Return (ECF No. 4), and
Petitioner filed a Reply (ECF No. 5). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS
the Petition and orders that Petitioner be released on the same terms and conditions as he
was previously released.
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
Case 3:26-cv-01251-BAS-BLM Document 6 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

- 2 - 26cv1251
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
(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 Venezuela, entered the United States on September 28, 2022,
seeking asylum. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 3.) He was released after Border Patrol determined he
was not a flight risk or danger to the community. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 3.) He was given work
authorization through 2029. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 5.) On December 3, 2025, the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) re-detained Petitioner without notice or an opportunity to be
heard and without any changed circumstances with respect to his flight risk or danger to
the community. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 9.) Petitioner seeks immediate release or a bond hearing.
III. 	ANALYSIS
Although the Government seems to agree that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing,
it bases its concession on its belief that this Court has ruled that it agrees with Maldonado
Bautista v. Santacruz, __ F. Supp. 3d___, 2025 WL 3713982 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025),
that an individual in Petitioner’s circumstances is entitled to discretionary release under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a). 	(ECF No. 7.) However, the Maldonado Bautista class applied only to
individuals who entered without inspection and were not apprehended upon arrival. 	Id.
Petitioner was apprehended at the border upon arrival, so he does not appear to be part of
the Maldonado Bautista class, nor does he appear to be entitled to discretionary release
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).1
1 The Court notes additionally that the Maldonado Bautista class has been limited to the Central
District of California and stayed with respect to all other potential class members. Maldonado Bautista v.
U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-1044 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026). Hence, Petitioner is not a member of
this class as he is located in the Southern District of California.
Case 3:26-cv-01251-BAS-BLM Document 6 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

- 3 - 26cv1251
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
Nonetheless, 	this 	Court 	finds 	Petitioner’s 	re-detention 	without 	notice 	or 	an
opportunity to be heard and without noticeably changed circumstances 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:
[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))).
Because DHS released Petitioner, finding he was not a flight risk or a danger to the
community in September 2022, and because there is no evidence that those circumstances
have changed, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same conditions as he was
initially released. If DHS 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 the Petition.
//
//
Case 3:26-cv-01251-BAS-BLM Document 6 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

- 4 - 26cv1251
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 Respondents to release Jose Daniel Parra Mozo on the
same terms and conditions as he was previously released in September 2022.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 16, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-01251-BAS-BLM Document 6 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4