Reported / Citable
Background
Emigdio Rene Caballero Perez, a Cuban citizen, entered the United States without inspection in November 2023. After immigration officials found that he had a credible fear of persecution in Cuba, the government granted him humanitarian parole through November 15, 2025. He received employment authorization, worked legally, and had no criminal convictions relevant to immigration. An immigration judge terminated his removal proceedings in December 2024, after which he applied to adjust his status with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
When Caballero Perez appeared for his adjustment-of-status interview on October 15, 2025, ICE detained him—one month before his parole was due to expire—even though the government did not allege that he had violated any parole condition. The government initiated new removal proceedings, and he remained detained while appealing an immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. He then sought habeas relief, while the government moved for summary judgment and requested a stay based on a Fifth Circuit order staying judgments in separate litigation.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition in part, denied the government’s motion for summary judgment, and denied its request for a stay. It concluded that the Fifth Circuit’s one-sentence stay order in the separate Sosnava Rodriguez litigation did not categorically bar district courts from granting individualized habeas relief on procedural-due-process grounds.
On the merits, the court held that ICE violated Caballero Perez’s Fifth Amendment procedural-due-process rights by re-detaining him without a pre-deprivation hearing or proof of changed individual circumstances. Because humanitarian parole reflected a prior determination that he posed neither a security risk nor a risk of absconding, and because he lacked a relevant criminal history, the court ordered his release within 48 hours under any conditions associated with his prior parole. It prohibited re-detention during his removal proceedings, or the imposition of additional release conditions, unless an immigration judge holds a hearing at which the government proves the need for that action by clear and convincing evidence.
Key Takeaways
- ICE’s re-detention of a previously paroled noncitizen without a hearing or evidence of changed circumstances violated procedural due process.
- The Fifth Circuit’s stay in separate litigation did not preclude individualized habeas relief on due-process grounds.
- The court ordered release within 48 hours and required notice, an immigration-judge hearing, and clear-and-convincing proof before any re-detention or additional release conditions.
Why It Matters
The decision treats humanitarian parole as an important prior government determination that the recipient is neither dangerous nor likely to abscond. Under the court’s reasoning, immigration authorities cannot disregard that determination and re-detain the person without constitutionally adequate process and evidence of changed circumstances.
The order also provides a concrete remedy beyond release: it places the burden on the government to justify any later re-detention or added restrictions by clear and convincing evidence before an immigration judge while removal proceedings remain pending.