W.D. Mich. Grants Habeas to Paroled Venezuelan, Ruling ICE Detention Violated Statutory and Due Process Rights

Judge Jane M. Beckering held that the Department of Homeland Security violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by detaining Jhonmer Ramon Ramirez Gonzalez without an individualized determination that his parole should be revoked.

Ramirez Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Venezuela, entered the United States at the San Ysidro, California, Port of Entry on October 14, 2024. He was paroled into the country under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) for urgent humanitarian reasons and filed a pending asylum application.

He was granted work authorization and was employed as an Amazon Flex driver in Michigan when ICE took him into custody on October 24, 2025. He was scheduled for a master calendar hearing before the Detroit Immigration Court on February 20, 2026.

The court found that the government did not follow the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements to revoke or terminate Ramirez Gonzalez’s parole. Under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i), parole must be terminated upon written notice only when the purpose of parole is accomplished or when humanitarian reasons no longer warrant his presence.

The record showed no indication that the purpose of the parole had been accomplished, as his asylum application remained pending. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the government made a case-by-case assessment to determine that humanitarian reasons or public benefit no longer justified his parole.

The court rejected the government’s argument that Ramirez Gonzalez was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) simply because he was an applicant for admission. The judge noted that the government had not provided facts suggesting his parole was terminated before his arrest.

Applying the three-factor test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court concluded that the detention violated due process. The private interest in avoiding detention was significant, the risk of erroneous deprivation was high without an individualized revocation hearing, and the government failed to show a significant interest in continued detention that outweighed these factors.

The court ordered Respondents to release Ramirez Gonzalez from custody, subject to any conditions that existed under his parole. The court also enjoined the government from re-detaining him absent a material change in circumstances unless due process requirements are satisfied.