Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

- 1 - 26cv1324
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
WISKENCIA DESULMA,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OTAY MESA
DETENTION CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-01324-BAS-JLB
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 1)
Petitioner Wiskencia Desulma filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
claiming he was improperly detained months after he was paroled into the United States
pursuant to the CBP One app. (ECF No. 1.) Although the Government opposes the request,
it acknowledges that the Court’s prior rulings support release. 	(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
(1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or
Case 3:26-cv-01324-BAS-JLB Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

- 2 - 26cv1324
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
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 Haiti, entered the United States on January 19, 2025, using
the CBP One app to seek asylum. (ECF No. 1.) He was released on humanitarian parole.
(Id.) 	On October 31, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) arrested
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. (Id.) Petitioner
has no criminal record and has attended all scheduled immigration hearings. 	(Id.)
Petitioner seeks immediate release or a bond hearing.
III. 	ANALYSIS
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
Case 3:26-cv-01324-BAS-JLB Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

- 3 - 26cv1324
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
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 on humanitarian parole, finding he was not a flight
risk or a danger to the community in January 2025, 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.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner Wiskencia Desulma’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. (ECF No. 1.) Accordingly, the Court issues the following
writ:
The Court ORDERS Wiskencia Desulma (A#244-897-386) be released on the same
terms and conditions as he was ordered released in January 2025.
The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 13, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:26-cv-01324-BAS-JLB Document 6 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3