Alisson Briyid Idarraga Montoya, an immigration detainee at California City Detention Facility, challenged her continued detention after being granted parole into the United States. She sought habeas relief against Christopher Chestnut, the facility's warden, along with federal immigration officials including ICE Field Office Director Moises Becerra, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Attorney General Pamela Bondi.
Judge Scott relied on her previous rulings in similar cases involving parolees who entered the U.S. and were subsequently detained. The government acknowledged that those 'cases involve individuals detained after entering the United States who were then granted parole into the United States, like Petitioner here' and conceded that 'the factual and legal issues present here are not substantively distinguishable.' Scott noted that even alleged violations of monitoring programs 'do not eliminate petitioner's right to such a hearing.'
The court had previously addressed identical legal issues in three recent cases: Ramazan M. v. Andrews, R.A.N.O. v. Wofford, and Omer G. G. v. Kaiser, all decided between November 2025 and January 2026. After ordering respondents to show cause why this case should be distinguished from those prior rulings, officials acknowledged the cases were substantially similar but continued to oppose the petition without raising new arguments.
Under the court's order, immigration officials must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence before a neutral decisionmaker that Idarraga Montoya is a flight risk or danger to the community to justify continued detention. The ruling adds to a growing body of Eastern District of California decisions requiring individualized bond hearings for immigration parolees facing detention.