Adam entered the United States without inspection in February 2024 and was released on parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) shortly after apprehension. He subsequently filed for asylum and lived in the country for nearly two years, maintaining full-time employment and having no criminal history.
In December 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement re-detained Adam and transferred him to the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Adam alleged he was taken into custody without notice, explanation, or a hearing before a neutral decision maker.
Respondents acknowledged they had insufficient information regarding the termination of Adam’s parole under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2). While asserting that Adam was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), Respondents noted that courts in the district had repeatedly reached the opposite conclusion under similar facts and did not oppose the petition.
Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro relied on prior rulings in Perez v. LaRose and Velazquez-Chinga v. Noem, which established that revoking parole without an individualized determination or opportunity to be heard violates due process. The court found that Adam’s initial release reflected a government determination that he posed no danger to the community or flight risk.
The court held that Respondents’ revocation of Adam’s parole and his subsequent re-detention without a pre-deprivation or bond hearing rendered his detention unlawful. The court ordered Respondents to immediately release Adam subject to the conditions of his preexisting parole.
The order further prohibits Respondents from re-detaining Adam without compliance with applicable regulations and the Due Process Clause. Prior to any such re-detention, Adam is entitled to notice of the reasons for parole revocation and a hearing before an immigration judge.
Respondents bear the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Adam poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight. The court denied Adam’s motion for a temporary restraining order as moot.