Ayala Perez v. Noem et al

1
3:25-cv-03777-CAB-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALEXI AYALA PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-03777-CAB-JLB
ORDER GRANTING HABEAS
PETITION
[Doc. No. 1]
Pending before the Court is Alexi Ayala Perez’s (“Petitioner”) petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] Petitioner claims
that he is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fifth Amendment, and regulations governing the
termination of parole. [Id. at 2, 12–14.] 	He principally seeks immediate release. 	[Id. at
15.] 	Respondents filed a response to the Petition, [Doc. No. 4], and Petitioner filed a
traverse, [Doc. No. 5]. 	For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the request for a
writ of habeas corpus and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from
custody under the same conditions of release that existed immediately prior to his May 23,
2025 re-detention.
///
///
Case 3:25-cv-03777-CAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-03777-CAB-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a Cuban national who presented at the San Ysidro port of entry on June
3, 2024 with an appointment via the Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) One mobile
application. 	[Petition at 5.] 	He was inspected and paroled into the United States under
8 C.F.R. § 212(d)(5)(A). [Id.] He was issued a Form I-94 valid through June 2, 2026, and
later issued an Employment Authorization Document valid through June 3, 2026. [Id. at
5–6.] On May 23, 2025, Petitioner appeared for a master calendar hearing in his case and
was detained by ICE when exiting the hearing. 	[Id. at 6.] 	Respondents do not refute or
supplement any of Petitioner’s facts. [See generally Doc. No. 4.]
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of a petitioner’s custody and seeks
to secure release from that illegal custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may
grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” The petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-BJC-
BJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues that his detention violates 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(5) and his Due
Process rights because his parole has never been revoked. Respondents do not engage with
Petitioner’s claims. Instead, Respondents state that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) and under the final judgment in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-cv-1873-
SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) is entitled to a bond hearing.
[Doc. No. 4.] The Court agrees with Petitioner.
8 C.F.R. 	§ 	212.5(e)(5) 	provides 	that 	parole 	shall 	be 	terminated 	“upon
accomplishment of the purpose for which parole was authorized or when in the opinion of
one of the officials listed in paragraph (a) of this section, neither humanitarian reasons nor
public benefit warrants the continued presence of the alien in the United States, parole shall
be terminated upon written notice to the alien[.]” Petitioner asserts, and Respondents do
Case 3:25-cv-03777-CAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-03777-CAB-JLB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
not contest, that he has never received any written notice revoking his parole. [Petition at
12, 14.] 	The Court therefore finds that ICE violated 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(5) by detaining
Petitioner without at least written notice revoking his parole.
Additionally, because Petitioner was previously released on parole, he possessed a
protected liberty interest in remaining free from detention that could not be revoked absent
notice. 	When an individual is released from custody, a liberty interest is created which
requires notice and a hearing before that individual may be taken back into custody. 	See
Valencia Zapata v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-07492-RFL, 2025 WL 2578207, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 5, 2025) (listing cases); see also Pinchi v. Noem, 792 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032–33
(N.D. Cal. 2025). 	Petitioner’s sudden re-detention without notice, an individualized
determination, or an opportunity to be heard violates the Due Process Clause. See Mathews
v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard
before deprivation of a protected liberty interest); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482
(1972) (recognizing that revocation of parole inflicts a “grievous loss” and requires
minimum due process protections).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s request for a writ of habeas corpus is
GRANTED such that the Court ORDERS Respondents to immediately release Petitioner
from custody under the same conditions of release that existed immediately prior to his
May 23, 2025 re-detention.
The Clerk of Court shall close the case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 14, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03777-CAB-JLB Document 6 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3