Vargas Cardenas v. Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
District Judge S. Kato Crews
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01174-SKC
KEVYN ALEXANDER VARGAS CARDENAS,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner Kevyn Alexander Vargas Cardenas is a citizen of Guatemala who is
currently being detained at the Denver Contract Detention Facility. Dkt. 1, ¶¶1, 40.
He entered the United States without inspection on October 17, 2022, and has resided
here continuously since then. Id. ¶40. Mr. Vargas Cardenas is married and is
gainfully employed as a landscaper. Id. ¶41.
On December 2, 2025, Mr. Vargas Cardenas, a resident of Jupiter, Florida, was
arrested on his way to work and was transferred to the custody of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). Id. ¶42. According to DHS, Mr. Vargas Cardenas is being
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(a). See Dkt. 6.
Mr. Vargas Cardenas filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on March 22,
2026, seeking an order from this Court directing Respondents to affect his immediate
Case No. 1:26-cv-01174-SKC Document 7 filed 04/01/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 7

2
release or provide him a bond hearing. Dkt. 1. He contends he is subject to detention,
if at all, under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. This Court ordered Respondents1 to respond to
the Petition within five days of service and show cause why it should not be granted
based on this Court’s previous analysis in Aleman Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-
cv-3688-SKC-SBP, 2025 WL 3718159, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 23, 2025). Dkt. 4.
Respondents filed their Answer to the Petition on March 31, 2026. Dkt. 6.
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under Section 2241 of Title 28,
which authorizes it to issue a writ of habeas corpus when a person is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon
the legality of that custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). “[T]he
traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Id.
Noncitizens may properly challenge the lawfulness of their detention through habeas
proceedings. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001).
The Court has considered the Petition, the Answer, the various attachments,
and the governing law. Because Mr. Vargas Cardenas’ challenge is fundamentally
legal in nature, the Court declines to hold a hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the
reasons shared in the following discussion, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
1 “Respondents” refers to Pamela Bondi, the United States Attorney General;
Markwayne Mullin, the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland
Security; the Director of the Denver ICE Field Office; and the Warden of the Denver
Contract ICE Detention Center.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01174-SKC Document 7 filed 04/01/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 7

3
ANALYSIS
This matter presents a similar factual background and procedural posture to
another of the Court’s cases, Aleman Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-3688-SKC-
SBP, 2025 WL 3718159, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 23, 2025). In Aleman Hernandez, this
Court conducted a review of the governing statutes relied on by the parties here and
concluded that when 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226 are read together, they “cover
[noncitizens] presenting at arrival (under § 1225) and then everybody else (under
§ 1226).” Aleman Hernandez, 2025 WL 3718159, at *6 (citing J.G.O. v. Francis, No.
25-CV-7233 (AS), 2025 WL 3040142, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2025)) (emphasis in
original). Because Mr. Aleman Hernandez had been present in the United States for
more than a decade, the Court found that Respondents were unlawfully detaining
him under § 1225, and that he was only properly detained under § 1226. Id.
In much appreciated candor, Respondents acknowledge the facts and legal
issues in this case are materially indistinguishable from those in Aleman Hernandez.
Dkt. 6, pp.2-3. Although they disagree with the Court’s previous conclusions, they
recognize the Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit have not yet offered guidance on
these legal questions. Id. Respondents also cite the Fifth Circuit’s recent order in
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th. Cir. 2026) and the Eighth Circuit’s
order in Avila v. Bondi, -- F.4th --, 2026 WL 819258, at *2–6 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026),
wherein 	those 	courts 	agreed 	with 	Respondents’ 	interpretation 	of 	the 	relevant
statutes, and they have attached their response brief in Guiterrez v. Baltazar, 25-cv-
Case No. 1:26-cv-01174-SKC Document 7 filed 04/01/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 7

4
2720-RMR, which fully explains their positions on these matters. Dkt. 6-1.
The Court has reviewed the Fifth Circuit and Eighth Circuit’s opinions but—
as it has previously stated—is not persuaded that its own analysis in Aleman
Hernandez must be upended. Consequently, the Court adopts and incorporates its
statutory analysis and conclusions from Aleman Hernandez, supra, as though stated
fully herein.
Mr. Vargas Cardenas has been in the United States for three and a half years,
and therefore, it cannot be credibly said he is seeking admission as described under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); rather, he is only properly detained under § 1226. See
Aleman Hernandez, 2025 WL 3718159, at **2-7. To be sure, on Mr. Vargas Cardenas’
Notice to Appear, the immigration official checked the box stating, “You are [a
noncitizen] present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled,” rather
than the box stating Mr. Vargas Cardenas was “an arriving [noncitizen].” Dkt. 1-3,
p.2 (emphasis added). Because “the Government has affirmatively decided to treat
[Petitioner] as being detained under Section 1226(a)[,] it cannot now be heard to
change its position to claim that he is detained under Section 1225(b).” Patel v.
Crowley, No. 25 C 11180, 2025 WL 2996787, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2025). See also
Kennedy v. Kijakazi, No. 22-2258, 2023 WL 1990303, at *3 (7th Cir. Feb. 14, 2023),
quoting DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 24 (2020) (the “[SEC v.
Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 95 (1943)] doctrine requires an agency to ‘defend its
actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted’ in the interest of promoting agency
Case No. 1:26-cv-01174-SKC Document 7 filed 04/01/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 7

5
accountability, instilling confidence in agency decisions, and maintaining an orderly
process of review.”). Therefore, Mr. Vargas Cardenas’ continued detention pursuant
to § 1225 is unlawful.
REMEDY
The Court turns now to the question of relief. In this instance, the Court cannot
conclude that ordering Respondents to provide Mr. Vargas Cardenas with a bond
hearing under § 1226 is an appropriate remedy. Not only is Petitioner’s continued
detention under § 1225 unlawful, but his original detention by DHS also appears to
have been unlawful. Under § 1226, a noncitizen may only be arrested based on a
“warrant issued by the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). But according to the
allegations, Mr. Vargas Cardenas was simply transferred into DHS custody. See Dkt.
1, ¶42.
Respondents had an opportunity in their papers to argue in the alternative
that Mr. Vargas Cardenas was subject to detention under § 1226 or provide some
evidence that a warrant for his arrest had been issued. But they did not. Because
Respondents have offered no lawful basis for his detention, the Court concludes Mr.
Vargas Cardenas is entitled to immediate release. Rivero v. Mina, No. 6:26-cv-66-
RBD-NWH, 2026 WL 199319, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2026); see also Bethancourt
Soto v. Soto, ---F. Supp.3d---, 2025 WL 2976572, at *9 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2025). “Forcing
a detainee to wait for a hearing for days or weeks more in custody—under who knows
what conditions—when he is not lawfully detained in the first place would gut the
Case No. 1:26-cv-01174-SKC Document 7 filed 04/01/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 7

6
purpose of habeas review.” Rivero v. Mina, 2026 WL 199319, at *4.
* 	* 	*
For the reasons shared above, Kevyn Alexander Vargas Cardenas’ Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED2 and the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Mr. Vargas Cardenas is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2), and Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from re-
detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
2. 	Respondents 	shall 	immediately 	release 	Mr. 	Vargas 	Cardenas 	from
detention; however, he shall remain in Respondents’ temporary custody for
the sole purpose of Respondents effectuating his return to Jupiter, Florida.
3. 	Respondents 	SHALL, 	if 	Mr. 	Vargas 	Cardenas 	wishes, 	transport 	Mr.
Vargas Cardenas back to Jupiter, Florida, at their own expense, within
36 hours of the date and time of this Order.
4. 	To effectuate the purpose of this Court’s Order and allow Mr. Vargas
Cardenas to return home, Respondents are also temporarily enjoined from
detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 for a period of fourteen days.
5. 	On or before Tuesday, April 7, 2026, Respondents shall confirm in writing
Petitioner’s release from custody and his return to Florida.
2 To the extent Petitioner’s Counsel seeks an award of attorney’s fees, he must file a
separate motion for fees that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Local Rules of Practice for this District.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01174-SKC Document 7 filed 04/01/26 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 7

7
6. 	This Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to ensure Respondents
comply with this Order.
DATED: April 1, 2026, 8:03 AM
BY THE COURT
_____________________________
S. Kato Crews
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-01174-SKC Document 7 filed 04/01/26 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 7