Skip to main content
U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon ruled last week that a 24-year-old Mexican asylum seeker was detained unlawfully outside Portland immigration court on June 5. In a 34-page written opinion released Wednesday, Simon further rejected the Department of Homeland Security’s rationale for detaining the petitioner.
The asylum seeker, who is identified in court documents only by the initials Y-Z-L-H, fled Mexico in spring 2023, trying to escape cartel violence. Simon wrote the cartel is “one of the most notorious and violent criminal drug cartels in Mexico,” and that a corrupt local police chief told the petitioner the cartel would be coming for him. Fearing violence and even death if he didn’t join the gang, Y-Z-L-H then fled his family’s ranch for the U.S. and followed the proper procedures as he sought asylum.
Y-Z-L-H spent the time ahead of his June 5 hearing in Portland immigration court employed as first a dishwasher and then a painter in Newport. On April 11, he was one of thousands of people legally paroled in the U.S. who received a mass email from the DHS trying to terminate his parole, but he showed up to his hearing. There, an immigration judge sided with the government and dismissed his case, noting he could appeal the decision.
Immediately after leaving the courtroom and stepping into the hallway, at least five Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained Y-Z-L-H, and he was transferred to a detention facility in Tacoma. That tactic—dismissing a case then making an immediate arrest—has become an increasingly common federal tactic under President Donald Trump.
Simon orally ruled on July 1 that the April 11 email did not terminate Y-Z-L-H’s parole lawfully, as first reported by The Oregonian. In his written opinion, Simon said that email violated section 1182 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (which he labels as the “Parole Statute”), which allows noncitizens to enter the U.S. as noncitizens and petition for formal admission.
“The procedures used materially violated federal immigration laws and regulations,” he wrote on Wednesday. “Accordingly, the man’s arrest and subsequent detention also were unlawful.”
By the evening of July 1, Simon’s written opinion indicates, Y-Z-L-H was released from the detention facility.
Much of Simon’s opinion centers on his rationale for why the court had the jurisdiction to review the case. He spends several pages determining whether DHS’s decision to terminate parole was their discretion under the law, concluding the judicial branch must exercise its checks and balances, especially regarding executive decisions.
With that in mind, Simon emphasized that “there are mandatory procedures for terminating parole” that he ruled the federal government had not complied with. He points specifically to the mass email on April 11 as an invalid way to terminate Y-Z-L-H’s parole, noting the Supreme Court has determined that under the Parole Statute, that parole must be granted and stripped on a case-by-case basis.
He added that DHS had not complied with other parts of the Parole Statute—namely, terminating parole because the parole had served its purpose, which was to give Y-Z-L-H a chance at asylum.
“Respondents fail to show that the Secretary has complied with the Parole Statute,” he wrote. “Respondents offer no evidence that any authorized official found Petitioner to be a flight risk or a danger to the public. Nor is there evidence that such an official found that humanitarian reasons do not warrant Petitioner’s presence in the United States.”
The ruling is a win for immigration advocates, and comes as Oregon’s immigration arrests have tripled since President Donald Trump took office. The total number of arrests in Oregon, the nation’s first sanctuary state, has thus far remained low in comparison to neighboring states.
“This decision is a clear rejection of fear-based policies that bypass the law and punish people simply for seeking refuge,” Stephen Manning, executive director of Innovation Law Lab, said in a statement. “It underscores the dangerous consequences of mass enforcement tactics that strip people of liberty without individual review. These policies inflict harm, violate the law, and undermine the promise of a fair and humane immigration system.”
