District Court Orders Bond Hearing for Cuban National Detained After Parole Expiration

Judge Philip A. Brimmer held that the petitioner, Alois Capote Zamora, is not subject to the mandatory detention regime of 8 U.S.C. § 1225 simply because he was initially detained under that statute upon his entry into the United States.

Zamora, a 42-year-old Cuban citizen, entered the U.S. on April 16, 2024, and was granted humanitarian parole until June 12, 2025. He filed an application for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 while his parole was active.

After his parole expired, Zamora remained in the country and was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The government argued that his detention reverted to § 1225, which governs arriving noncitizens and generally mandates detention without bond.

The court rejected this argument, noting that § 1182(d)(5)(A), which authorizes parole, does not state that a noncitizen reverts to their pre-parole status or must be detained upon expiration. Instead, the statute requires the individual to be returned to custody and their case dealt with as an applicant for admission.

Judge Brimmer determined that an "applicant for admission" includes noncitizens present in the U.S. without admission, not just those arriving at the border. Consequently, Zamora was treated like other undocumented immigrants residing in the country rather than arriving aliens subject to expedited removal procedures.

The court cited recent decisions from other districts and its own prior rulings in similar cases, such as Rafibaev v. Noem, to support the conclusion that parole removes a noncitizen from the mandatory detention regime of § 1225.

Because § 1226 applies to noncitizens detained while already residing in the United States, Zamora is entitled to a bond hearing. The court found no evidence that he had received such a hearing to date.

The order grants the petition and directs respondents to provide Zamora with a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. The government bears the burden of proving that he is a danger to the community or a risk of flight.

The court declined to address Zamora’s other claims, including violations of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, as the INA claim provided the relief sought. A request for attorney’s fees was denied for failure to comply with local rules.