The court held that the government failed to provide notice or an opportunity to be heard before revoking Guerrero Urbina’s release on November 10, 2025.
Guerrero Urbina, a native of Mexico who entered the United States in 2009, had been released on his own recognizance in 2012 and complied with immigration proceedings until they were administratively closed in 2014. He is married to a U.S. citizen and has two U.S. citizen children.
Respondents argued that Guerrero Urbina was a member of the Bond Eligible Class certified in Maldonado Bautista v. Santacruz and was therefore only entitled to a bond hearing. The court rejected this argument, noting that several recent decisions in the district have similarly rejected the notion that class membership limits the remedy to a bond hearing when due process violations are at stake.
The court cited a growing pattern of rulings in the district, including Naveen v. LaRose, Lozada v. Larose, Garcia v. Noem, and Xie v. LaRose, where courts found due process violations and ordered release rather than limiting petitioners to bond hearings.
The judge emphasized that while parole is discretionary, release on recognizance reflects a government determination that the individual is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. Revoking that status without meaningful notice and a hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Respondents did not provide evidence that Guerrero Urbina was afforded any notice or opportunity to be heard regarding the revocation of his release. The court found that without changed circumstances, any such notice could not have been meaningful.
The court ordered Respondents to immediately release Guerrero Urb subject to the conditions of his preexisting release. The parties were ordered to file a joint status report by April 21, 2026, confirming his release, after which the case was closed.