Washington, Jan 14
A US federal court has ruled that immigration authorities acted unlawfully in detaining an Indian national after summarily cancelling his parole, finding that the government failed to follow basic constitutional requirements before taking him back into custody.
The District Court for the Southern District of California granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Vikas Kumar, an Indian citizen detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Otay Mesa Detention Center.
The court on January 6 ordered the government to immediately release Kumar from custody under the same parole conditions that had previously allowed him to live and work in the United States.
Kumar was arrested by ICE on December 24, 2025, while delivering food for DoorDash to a customer at the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, according to court records.
He had entered the United States on March 12, 2024, without inspection or valid entry documents. At the border, he told US officials that he feared returning to India.
Two days later, on March 14, 2024, immigration authorities released him on conditional parole after determining that he was not a flight risk and did not pose a danger to the community.
The court noted that Kumar complied with all conditions of his parole. He appeared for ICE check-ins, obtained work authorisation, received a California driver’s licence and a US Social Security number, and applied for asylum.
Despite this record of compliance, his parole was later revoked without notice, without explanation, and without any opportunity to be heard, the court said.
In his petition, Kumar argued that his detention violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, federal immigration law, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court agreed, ruling that once the government released him on parole, Kumar gained a protected liberty interest in remaining out of custody unless authorities could show valid reasons to revoke that release.
The judge said the Fifth Amendment applies to all persons in the United States, regardless of immigration status, and generally requires a hearing before the government deprives someone of liberty.
The court found that revoking Kumar’s parole without notice, reasons, or a hearing created a high risk of wrongful detention. It also said the government failed to show that any circumstances had changed since Kumar’s release that would justify re-arresting him.
Court records showed that Kumar had no criminal history, had not violated parole conditions, and had continued to work and pursue his asylum claim.
The judge rejected the government’s argument that Kumar was simply entitled to a bond hearing, ruling that his rights were broader because his parole had already been granted after a finding that he posed no danger and was not a flight risk.
The court said the government’s interest in detaining Kumar without procedural safeguards was low, especially when weighed against his strong interest in remaining free and continuing his asylum process.
As a result, the court held that Kumar’s detention was unlawful and ordered his immediate release.
The judge also directed that if immigration authorities seek to detain him again, they must first provide notice, explain the reasons for revoking parole, and hold a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.
