Ricse Mendoza v. Bondi et al

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND O RDER G RANTING PETITION – 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JHAIR RICSE MENDOZA
Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN HENKEY, Field Office Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, Salt
Lake City Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Field Office; KENNETH
PORTER, Director of the Boise Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Field Sub-Office;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General;
MIKE HOLLINSHEAD, Sheriff of Elmore
County,
Respondents.
Case No. 1-26-cv-00020-AKB
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR HABEAS CORPUS
On January 29, 2026, the Court denied Petitioner Jhair Ricse Mendoza’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (Dkt. 2), and asked
for supplemental briefing to clarify the manner of his release (Dkt. 11 at 6–7). Petitioner submitted
supplemental briefing on February 13, explaining that although his A-File,1 did not contain any
release documents other than his Notice to Appear (NTA) (Dkt. 12-2 at 2), he had to have been
paroled because no other mechanism for release exists for aliens who have been detained under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b) (Dkt. 12 at 2, 6, 8).
1 	An A-File is an official immigration record containing all records and documents related
to the alien maintained by United States Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS). See United
States v. Blanco-Gallegos, 188 F.3d 1072, 1075 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1999).
Case 1:26-cv-00020-AKB Document 13 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND O RDER G RANTING PETITION – 2
As the Court previously explained, an alien who is paroled is subject to detention under
§ 1226(a)—not § 1225(b)(1)—because parole disqualifies a noncitizen from § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii)’s
grasp (Dkt. 11 at 5). Petitioner’s NTA charges him as being “an alien present in the United States
who has not been admitted or paroled” (Dkt. 12-3 at 1). That does not necessarily mean that he
was not paroled at a later date. But standing alone, it does not resolve how Petitioner was actually
released.
Under § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), an alien pursuing asylum whom an officer finds has a credible
fear of persecution “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.” The
only exception to the mandatory detention required by § 1225 is temporary release on parole “for
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit” under § 1182(d)(5)(A). Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 300 (2018). Indeed, the Supreme Court noted that the “express exception
to detention implies that there are no other circumstances under which aliens detained under
§ 1225(b) may be released.” Id. Thus, if Petitioner was detained under § 1225(b)(1)(A), which the
Government claims he was (Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 5), then the only circumstances under which he could have
been released was parole under § 1182(d)(5)(A).
This result is bolstered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy regarding
parole of arriving aliens found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture, which likewise
contemplates that a qualifying alien whose identity is confirmed and is neither a flight risk nor a
danger to the community should be paroled “on the basis that his or her continued detention is not
in the public interest.” (Dkt. 12-6 ¶ 6.2). The Government does not dispute that Petitioner was
found to have had a credible fear of return to Peru, nor does it provide any alternative basis for his
release (Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 7). Therefore, the Court finds that sufficient evidence exists to support a finding
that Petitioner was paroled into the United States. See also Memorandum Decision and Order,
Case 1:26-cv-00020-AKB Document 13 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND O RDER G RANTING PETITION – 3
Vences Beltran v. Henkey, No. 25-cv-00733-DCN (D. Idaho Jan. 30, 2026), Dkt. 11 at 11 (noting
the alien-petitioner was “‘paroled’ in the more common parlance because he was not admitted into
the United States, but was, nevertheless, allowed to enter and ‘roam the country’ freely”).
Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus relief and orders his
immediate release from custody.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. 	Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED.
2. 	Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 2) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
February 17, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00020-AKB Document 13 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 3