Bachos Abarca v. Baltazar et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. 25-cv-04086-CYC
BERNARDO BACHOS ABARCA,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTAZAR, in his official capacity as Warden of the Aurora ICE Processing Center;
ROBERT HAGAN, in his official capacity as Field Office Director of the Aurora Field Office of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement;
TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement;
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
and
PAMELA JO BONDI, in her official capacity as the Attorney General of the United States;
Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Bernardo Bachos Abarca, a detainee at the Aurora Contract Detention
Facility in Aurora, Colorado, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the
respondents, who control that facility, are improperly subjecting him to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 1 (the “Petition”). Instead, he says, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
governs his detention vel non. Because this is a fundamentally legal debate, there is no need
for a hearing on the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the reasons that follow, the Court
grants in part the Petition.
BACKGROUND
This case is one of numerous cases in this District and across the country seeking habeas
relief for immigrants detained within the United States and denied bond hearings under a new
Case No. 1:25-cv-04086-CYC Document 12 filed 02/05/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226. E.g., Hernandez-Redondo, No. 25-cv-03993-PAB,
2026 WL 290989 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Jimenez v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03592-CYC, 2025
WL 3559128 (D. Colo. Dec. 12, 2025); Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02677-CNS, 2025
WL 2652880 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025); Batz Barreno v. Baltasar, No. 25-cv-03017-GPG-TPO,
2025 WL 3190936 (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2025); Loa Caballero v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03120-
NYW, 2025 WL 2977650 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2025). The petitioner seeks release or, in the
alternative, a bond hearing. ECF No. 1 at 19.
The petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, has lived in the United States for several years and,
after 2008, he was never inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States. ECF No. 1 ¶¶
1, 3; ECF No. 10-1 ¶¶ 4–7. As a result, he had been present in the United States for years before
he was encountered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on November 24, 2025,
near Glenwood Springs, Colorado. ECF No. 10-1 ¶ 8. The petitioner argues that he would
qualify for release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and the respondents do not offer any evidence
of a criminal history that requires mandatory detention. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Instead, they
maintain that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). ECF No. 10-1 ¶ 9; ECF No. 10 at 9–
16.
ANALYSIS
A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to any person who demonstrates he is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
This includes “[c]hallenges to immigration detention.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305,
1310 (10th Cir. 2004). The individual in custody bears the burden of proving that their detention
is unlawful. Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 286 (1941).
Case No. 1:25-cv-04086-CYC Document 12 filed 02/05/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
To meet that burden, the petitioner argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applies to him, “that
aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention,” Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)); see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) (providing for discretionary detention); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (providing
framework for requesting a bond determination), and that he has received no such hearing. The
Court has previously resolved this legal question in favor of a similarly situated petitioner.
Jimenez, 2025 WL 3559128, at *1–4. The respondents ignore this and other similar rulings in
this District and, instead, argue that section 1225 applies to the petitioner and all other
“applicants for admission.” ECF No. 10 at 5–8. The Court remains firmly convinced that it and
the other judges in the District who have addressed this issue have correctly decided those cases
and incorporates its analysis from Jimenez. 2025 WL 3559128, at *1–4. Accordingly, the Court
finds that the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing that has not been provided in violation of
due process.
There is a final matter. The petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 1 at 19.
But D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3(a) requires that “a motion for attorney fees . . . be supported by
affidavit,” and no such affidavit supported the request. Further, “a motion involving a contested
issue of law shall . . . be supported by a recitation of legal authority in the motion.”
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). As a result, the Court denies this portion of the Petition without
prejudice. If the petitioner chooses to file a motion for attorney fees, it must comply with all
applicable rules and provide legal authority for the request. See L.G. v. Choate, 744 F. Supp. 3d
1172, 1187 (D. Colo. 2024).
Case No. 1:25-cv-04086-CYC Document 12 filed 02/05/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition, ECF No. 1, is
GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part.
It is further ORDERED that
(1) the respondents shall provide the petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within seven days of this Order;
(2) the respondents are ENJOINED from denying bond to the petitioner on the basis that
he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); and
(3) the respondents shall file a status report within five days of the petitioner’s bond
hearing, stating whether he has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was
denied, the reasons for that denial.
Entered and dated this 5th day of February, 2026, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-04086-CYC Document 12 filed 02/05/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4