{"id":381,"date":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=381"},"modified":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","slug":"ayala-perez-noem-parole-revocation-due-process-immediate-release","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=381","title":{"rendered":"Ayala Perez v. Noem \u2014 S.D. Cal. Grants Habeas and Orders Immediate Release of Cuban Parolee Re-Detained Without Notice"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Ayala Perez v. Noem<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Southern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-14<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-03777<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Section 2241 habeas, immigration parole termination, 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 212.5(e)(5), Fifth Amendment due process, Mathews v. Eldridge<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Alexi Ayala Perez is a Cuban national who appeared at the San Ysidro port of entry in June 2024 with an appointment scheduled through the Customs and Border Protection “CBP One” mobile app. Immigration officers paroled him into the United States under 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 212.5, a regulation that allows the government to release certain noncitizens into the country pending the resolution of their immigration cases. He received an I-94 form valid through June 2026 and a work permit valid through June 2026.<\/p>\n

On May 23, 2025 \u2014 almost a year after his initial parole \u2014 Ayala Perez appeared for a master calendar hearing in immigration court. As he was leaving the hearing, ICE officers detained him. He had received no written notice that his parole was being revoked, and no individualized hearing had been held before the re-detention.<\/p>\n

He filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2241 arguing that ICE’s actions violated 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 212.5(e)(5) (which requires written notice before parole is terminated) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He sought immediate release. The government’s response did not engage with his arguments. Instead, it argued only that he was entitled to a bond hearing under the Maldonado Bautista class-action judgment.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court granted the petition and ordered the government to release Ayala Perez immediately under the same conditions of release that had existed before his May 23, 2025 re-detention.<\/p>\n

The court ruled in his favor on both grounds. First, 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 212.5(e)(5) is unambiguous: parole “shall be terminated upon written notice to the alien.” Ayala Perez received no such notice. The government did not contest that fact. ICE therefore violated its own binding regulation by re-detaining him without first revoking his parole through the required written notice.<\/p>\n

Second, because Ayala Perez had been released on parole, he had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in remaining free from custody. The court relied on a line of recent California district-court decisions \u2014 including Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser<\/em> (N.D. Cal. 2025) and Pinchi v. Noem<\/em> (N.D. Cal. 2025) \u2014 recognizing that re-detention of a parolee triggers due-process protections. Under classic due-process cases like Mathews v. Eldridge<\/em> and Morrissey v. Brewer<\/em>, the deprivation of a substantial liberty interest requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the deprivation occurs. ICE’s sudden re-detention without notice, individualized determination, or hearing therefore violated the Fifth Amendment.<\/p>\n

The court rejected the government’s argument that a bond hearing under Maldonado Bautista<\/em> was an adequate substitute. The petitioner’s claim was not that he had been denied a bond hearing while detained but that he should not have been detained at all without notice. The remedy was full release, not merely a bond hearing.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n