Acevedo v. Almodovar

Background

Nathaniel Romeo Rojas Acevedo, a national of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States in 2000 and became a lawful permanent resident through marriage in 2009. He had several criminal convictions, including felony convictions for credit card theft and driving while intoxicated with a passenger under sixteen, as well as misdemeanor convictions for identity theft and retail theft.

After traveling to the Dominican Republic in December 2022, Rojas was found inadmissible because of his criminal record when he tried to return. Customs and Border Protection nevertheless granted him immigration parole, allowing him to enter and live in the United States while his immigration proceedings continued. He received a temporary document stating that he could use his status to travel, establish employment eligibility, or establish lawful permanent resident status.

Rojas was served with notices to appear in removal proceedings. He conceded that he was removable but applied for cancellation of removal, a form of discretionary relief available to certain long-term lawful permanent residents. The opinion states that the parties did not dispute his eligibility for that relief. Rojas remained at liberty while his immigration case proceeded.

On August 28, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Rojas outside his residence and detained him. He received no notice that his parole had been terminated, and the agents did not provide information about the reason for his detention. His immigration parole remained in effect. The immigration judge had scheduled an individual hearing for October 31, 2025, concerning his applications for relief.

Arguments and legal framework

Rojas sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which allows a federal court to order release when a person is held in violation of federal law or the Constitution. He argued that his detention violated both procedural and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. Procedural due process generally requires appropriate procedures before the government takes away a protected liberty interest.

The government argued that Rojas was an applicant for admission under the Immigration and Nationality Act and therefore was subject to mandatory detention without additional constitutional process. Rojas responded that, although parole did not formally admit him to the United States, the government had allowed him to live freely in the country for more than two years.

The court concluded that Rojas’s circumstances did not fit neatly within the rules governing either formally admitted noncitizens or people stopped at the border. He had not been formally admitted, but he also had not been denied entry and held at the border. Instead, the government had permitted him to live, work, and maintain an ordinary life in the United States while his immigration case remained pending.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on Supreme Court decisions holding that a liberty interest cannot be revoked without due process and on several district court decisions involving noncitizens who had been released from custody and later detained without notice. The court held that a noncitizen who has not been admitted or denied entry but has been given government permission to live in the United States is protected by the Due Process Clause.

The court determined that Rojas had acquired a protected liberty interest because he had lived freely in the United States on parole for more than two years. His parole allowed him to maintain a residence, work, and form ordinary family and community connections. Although his liberty was subject to the continuing immigration proceedings, the court held that the government could not terminate that liberty without an orderly process.

The court also relied on immigration regulations requiring written notice when parole is formally revoked, including an individualized reason for the revocation. The government did not argue that Rojas’s parole had been terminated automatically or through a charging document. The court therefore held that Rojas was entitled at least to notice of parole revocation and an individualized explanation before detention.

Relief and disposition

The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It held that Rojas’s detention violated procedural due process because his parole had not been revoked and he had received no notice or individualized explanation before being arrested and detained. The court stated that release is the usual remedy for unlawful executive detention, and the government did not dispute that release would be appropriate if the Due Process Clause applied.

The court did not decide the full range of procedures that might be required if the government later revoked Rojas’s parole and detained him lawfully. It also did not address his alternative substantive due process arguments.

The conclusion ordered the respondents to immediately release Rojas from custody and to certify compliance by filing an entry on the docket no later than October 30, 2025.