The case involves an immigrant identified as E.L.E.E. who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after officials revoked his parole. The petitioner had been in the United States for just under one year at the time of his detention and was released on parole in January 2025. ICE argued that the petitioner violated his parole terms by failing to report a change of address in July 2025, but the petitioner disputed this claim, arguing he complied with all reporting requirements.
Judge Drozd rejected the government's arguments that the petitioner's short time in the U.S. diminished his liberty interest, citing a similar case that found an immigrant "has a private interest in remaining free, which developed over the year he resided in the United States." The judge concluded that "petitioner's parole revocation violated due process because he did not receive written notice of the reason for revocation," emphasizing that proper procedures require both notification and reasoning for any revocation.
The case began in January 2026 when the petitioner filed both a habeas corpus petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release from ICE custody. Judge Drozd initially granted the TRO on January 9, ordering the petitioner's immediate release. In March, the parties stipulated to consolidate proceedings and resolve the case on the existing record without further briefing.
The permanent injunction prohibits ICE from re-detaining the petitioner without written notice and a hearing before an immigration judge, where the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a flight risk or danger to the community. The ruling adds to a growing body of cases in the Eastern District of California challenging prolonged immigration detention without adequate due process protections.