US: In a parole case, a judge rules that ICE detention is “unlawful.”

US: After hastily revoking an Indian national’s parole, a US federal court found that immigration officials had violated fundamental constitutional rights by detaining him.

Vikas Kumar, an Indian national being held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the Otay Mesa Detention Center, sought a writ of habeas corpus, which the District Court for the Southern District of California approved.

On January 6, the court mandated that the government promptly release Kumar from detention on the same parole terms that had previously permitted him to live and work in the United States.

According to court documents, on December 24, 2025, Kumar was detained by ICE while delivering meals for DoorDash to a client at the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

On March 12, 2024, he entered the country without a proper entrance document or inspection. He expressed his concern of going back to India to US authorities at the border.

After concluding that he did not represent a flight risk or a community threat, immigration officials released him on conditional parole two days later, on March 14, 2024.

The judge observed that Kumar complied with every parole requirement. He petitioned for asylum, showed up for ICE check-ins, earned a California driver’s license and a US Social Security number, and was granted work authorization.

According to the court, his parole was subsequently terminated without warning, without justification, and without giving him a chance to be heard, despite his history of compliance.

Kumar claimed in his appeal that his detention was illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal immigration law, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The court concurred, holding that Kumar had a protected liberty interest in staying out of detention until the government could provide good cause to revoke his release on parole.

The judge said that everyone in the United States, regardless of immigration status, is protected by the Fifth Amendment, which typically calls for a hearing before the government deprives someone of their freedom.

The court determined that there was a significant danger of wrongful imprisonment when Kumar’s parole was revoked without cause, notification, or a hearing. Additionally, it said that the government had not shown that any changes in circumstances after Kumar’s release would warrant his re-arrest.

According to court documents, Kumar had never been convicted of a crime, had never broken the terms of his parole, and had kept up his employment and asylum application.

Since his parole had previously been granted after a determination that he presented no threat and was not a flight risk, the court rejected the government’s claim that Kumar just needed a bail hearing, holding that his rights were more expansive.

Given Kumar’s strong desire to be free and pursue his asylum application, the court determined that the government had little interest in holding him without providing procedural protections.

The court thus declared that Kumar’s incarceration was illegal and mandated his immediate release.

Additionally, the court ordered that immigration officials provide notice, present an explanation for the parole revocation, and arrange a hearing before an impartial decision-maker if they wanted to imprison him once again.