Reported / Citable
Background
Kimberly Tatiana Murillo Benitez, a Honduran citizen, entered the United States on August 9, 2024, was placed in removal proceedings, and was released on parole scheduled to expire around August 9, 2026. After a routine supervision appointment, ICE re-detained her on or about June 19, 2026.
The government did not allege that Murillo Benitez had violated any parole condition. She had remained detained for 48 days at the Houston Contract Detention Facility without an individualized custody determination.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Keith P. Ellison granted the habeas petition in part, holding that Murillo Benitez’s re-detention violated her Fifth Amendment procedural-due-process rights. Applying the court’s prior decisions, the court concluded that ICE may not re-detain a noncitizen previously released on parole or recognizance without a pre-deprivation hearing or proof of changed individual circumstances.
The court denied the government’s request to stay the case based on the Fifth Circuit’s stay pending en banc review in Sosnava Rodriguez. That published order did not state that it barred habeas relief on procedural-due-process grounds distinct from those at issue in the stayed cases. The court ordered Murillo Benitez released within 48 hours under her prior release terms and denied the government’s motion to stay and for summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Re-detaining a parolee without an individualized hearing or changed circumstances can violate procedural due process.
- The government alleged no violation of Murillo Benitez’s parole conditions.
- Any future re-detention or added release conditions require notice and an IJ hearing, with the government proving flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that immigration authorities cannot revoke parole and return a noncitizen to detention based solely on an unexplained change in custody status. It also treats the Fifth Circuit’s stay in Sosnava Rodriguez as limited to its unstated scope, rather than a blanket bar on separate due-process habeas claims.