A U.S. District Court in New York has granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Flavio Pelliccioni, a 70-year-old citizen of San Marino. The court ruled that the conditions imposed on Pelliccioni by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were unlawful. This decision affects Pelliccioni's supervision conditions, specifically the GPS ankle monitor and geographic restrictions that were reinstated without proper procedure.
The ruling, issued on October 7, 2026, is significant as it highlights the legal obligations of immigration authorities to follow their own procedures when imposing supervision conditions on individuals. Pelliccioni's case raises important questions about due process rights for immigrants facing deportation.
Background
Flavio Pelliccioni, originally from San Marino, was arrested by ICE on December 22, 2025, after allegedly overstaying his visa. His arrest was linked to an INTERPOL Red Notice issued by Italy, which requested his provisional arrest for financial crimes. Following his arrest, Pelliccioni was detained for four months in Texas until a court found that his continued detention without bond violated due process.
On April 21, 2026, Pelliccioni was released on bond with certain conditions, including the use of a GPS ankle monitor and travel restrictions. However, on August 3, 2026, during a check-in with ICE, Pelliccioni's ankle monitor was removed, and he was informed that he would face less restrictive conditions. The next day, however, ICE reinstated the ankle monitor and travel restrictions without following required procedures, prompting Pelliccioni to file his habeas corpus petition.
The Ruling
The court ruled in favor of Pelliccioni, stating that the reinstatement of his ankle monitor and restrictions was unlawful. Judge Analisa Torres noted that ICE violated its own procedures by relying solely on the INTERPOL Red Notice without obtaining necessary underlying documentation or providing Pelliccioni a chance to contest the notice. The court emphasized, "the August 5, 2026, reinstatement of Petitioner’s ankle monitor and associated restrictions was unlawful because it violated ICE’s own procedures."
The court pointed out that ICE's actions did not comply with the Accardi doctrine, which requires agencies to adhere to their own regulations when making decisions that affect individuals' rights. The ruling ordered that Pelliccioni's previous supervision conditions be restored and that the ankle monitor be removed by October 9, 2026.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for individuals under ICE supervision, particularly those who may face similar conditions. It reinforces the necessity for immigration authorities to follow their established procedures when imposing restrictions on individuals. The decision could set a precedent for future cases involving the legality of ICE's actions and the rights of immigrants.
Moreover, this case underscores the importance of due process in immigration proceedings, especially for individuals who may be vulnerable due to their immigration status. The court's decision serves as a reminder that agencies must operate within the bounds of their own policies and the law.
What’s Next
ICE has the option to appeal the court's decision, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There may also be related cases pending that could further explore the implications of this ruling on immigration policies and practices.