Calderon Esparza v. Noem et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. 26-cv-00440-CYC
ROGELIO CALDERON ESPARZA,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
PAM BONDI, U.S. Attorney General;
TODD LYONS, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE);
WARDEN OF THE DENVER CONTRACT DETENTION FACILITY;
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW;
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Rogelio Calderon Esparza, a detainee at the ICE Aurora Contract Detention
Center 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 under a new interpretation of 8
U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226. E.g., Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-PAB, 2026 WL
Case No. 1:26-cv-00440-CYC Document 10 filed 02/23/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
290989 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Jimenez Facio 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 22–23.
The petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, has lived in the United States continuously since at
least 1997. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 17. 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 18,
2025. Id. ¶¶ 2, 4. The petitioner argues that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §
1226 and that he has no criminal record, 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. 9 at 2.
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).
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
Case No. 1:26-cv-00440-CYC Document 10 filed 02/23/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
framework for requesting a bond determination), and that his continued detention premised on 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates his due process rights and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 4–6, 11, 16, 19, 26–52, 68–76, 83–95. The Court has previously resolved this legal
question in favor of a similarly situated petitioner. Jimenez Facio, 2025 WL 3559128, at *1–4.
The respondents recognize this, but “respectfully disagree with that ruling.” ECF No. 9 at 2. 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 Facio.
2025 WL 3559128, at *1–4. To the extent the respondents contend that the Fifth Circuit’s recent
decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F. 4th ----, 2026 WL 323330, at *5–10 (5th Cir. Feb.
6, 2026), makes a difference, see ECF No. 9 at 3–4, Judge Sweeney’s thorough rebuttal of that
divided decision provides a solid foundation to maintain the consensus that exists in this District.
See Singh v. Baltazar, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 352870, at *3–6 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2026).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and his
continued detention is therefore a violation of due process.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition, ECF No. 1, is
GRANTED in part and DENIED 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
Case No. 1:26-cv-00440-CYC Document 10 filed 02/23/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
(3) the respondents shall file a status report within seven 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 23rd day of February, 2026, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-00440-CYC Document 10 filed 02/23/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4