Reported / Citable
Background
Anthony Jose Aldana, a Venezuelan national, entered the United States on January 18, 2025, through discretionary humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). His parole initially extended through January 17, 2027, and he applied for asylum. After a traffic stop, federal immigration authorities took him into custody around July 7, 2026.
Aldana filed a habeas petition seeking immediate release or an individualized bond hearing. He was initially detained in Taylor, Texas, but was transferred to a detention facility in Louisiana after filing. The court concluded that the transfer did not defeat its jurisdiction because Aldana had properly named his immediate custodian when he filed.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition. It held that service of Aldana’s notice to appear terminated his humanitarian parole under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i), restoring him to the status he held when paroled: an applicant for admission.
As an applicant for admission, Aldana was subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The court held that detention pending removal proceedings without an individualized bond hearing was authorized by the statute and did not violate due process. It also rejected Aldana’s ancillary arguments and concluded that habeas relief was unwarranted.
Key Takeaways
- A district court retains habeas jurisdiction when a petitioner is transferred after properly filing against the immediate custodian.
- A notice to appear can serve as written notice terminating humanitarian parole.
- A noncitizen whose parole is terminated may be detained as an applicant for admission under Section 1225(b)(2) without a bond hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision treats humanitarian parole as temporary and not an admission to the United States. Once a notice to appear terminates that parole, the court held, the noncitizen returns to applicant-for-admission status for detention purposes.
For habeas challenges to pre-removal detention in the Western District of Texas, the ruling reinforces that Section 1225(b)(2) detention without an individualized bond hearing is constitutionally permissible under the court’s reading of controlling law.