Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RIGOBERTO GARCIA SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:25-cv-01219-KG-JFR
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Rigoberto Garcia Sanchez’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. 14. The Court
issued an Order to Answer, Doc. 4, on December 15, 2025, and has not received a written
response from the Government. Because Mr. Garcia Sanchez’s challenge presents a purely legal
question, the Court declines to hold a hearing, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and grants his petition for
the reasons below. His Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is denied as moot in light of
the Court granting his petition.
I. Background
Mr. Garcia Sanchez, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection
“over 22 years ago and was not apprehended upon arrival.” Doc. 1 at 2.
On November 3, 2025, DHS arrested Mr. Garcia Sanchez in Redmond, Washington. Id.
at 4. Mr. Garcia Sanchez remains detained at the Cibola County Correctional Center. Id. at 1.
Mr. Garcia Sanchez claims he has a statutory right to a bond hearing and the Government’s
failure to provide him one “violate[s] Petitioner’s statutory rights under the INA and the Court’s
Case 1:25-cv-01219-KG-JFR Document 15 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 4

2
judgment in Maldonado Bautista.”1 Id. at 6. He therefore seeks immediate release, or, in the
alternative, a prompt bond hearing within seven days. Id.
II. Standard of Review
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks “release from unlawful physical
confinement.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). Habeas corpus review is
available if a noncitizen is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 687.
III. Analysis
For the reasons below, the Court finds that (A) 8 U.S.C. § 1226 governs Mr. Garcia
Sanchez’s detention and (B) the proper remedy is a bond hearing where the Government bears
the burden of proof.
A. Section 1226 governs Mr. Garcia Sanchez’s detention.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) establishes distinct detention regimes
depending on whether a noncitizen is “seeking admission” to the United States. See Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288–89 (2018). Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to “applicant[s] for
admission” who are “seeking admission” and “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be
admitted.” The “provision mandates detention and affords no bond hearing.” Pu Sacvin v. De
Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *1 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.). By contrast, § 1226(a)
authorizes the arrest and detention, “on a warrant issued by the Attorney General,” of noncitizens
“pending a decision on whether [they are] to be removed.” Noncitizens “detained under this
1 Petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief under the class-action order in Maldonado Bautista
v. Santacruz, 2025 WL 3713987 (C.D. Cal.). The Court resolves this case under § 1226 and
therefore does not reach that issue.
Case 1:25-cv-01219-KG-JFR Document 15 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 4

3
second detention regime are entitled to individualized bond hearings at the outset of detention.”
Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432, at *1.
Consistent with most district courts to consider the issue and this Court’s prior findings,
the Court finds that § 1226 governs here. See Barco Mercado v. Francis, 2025 WL 3295903, at
*13 (S.D.N.Y.) (collecting 362 district-court opinions nationwide and noting that challengers
prevailed in at least 350 of them, in decisions by over 160 judges across fifty courts); Pu Sacvin,
2025 WL 3187432 (Gonzales, J.); Danierov v. Noem, 2026 WL 45288, at *2 (D.N.M.)
(Gonzales, J.). Section 1225(a)(1) defines an “applicant for admission” as a noncitizen “who has
not been admitted or who arrives in the United States.” In contrast, § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s detention
mandate applies only to noncitizens “seeking admission” (emphasis added). Noncitizens
“seeking admission” are those who have not “effected an entry” into the United States. DHS v.
Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020). Noncitizens “who entered the country years earlier”
are not “seeking admission,” and therefore fall under § 1226 rather than § 1225(b)(2)(A). Pu
Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3.
Under this framework, § 1226 governs Mr. Garcia Sanchez’s detention. ICE arrested him
twenty-two years after his initial entry into the United States and did not apprehend him at or
near the border. Doc. 1 at 4. Accordingly, § 1225’s mandatory detention provision does not
apply because Mr. Garcia Sanchez effected an entry into the United States by living here for
decades. Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3.
B. The remedy is a bond hearing where the Government bears the burden of proof.
The proper habeas remedy is a prompt bond hearing at which the Government must
prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Garcia Sanchez is a flight risk or danger to the
community. Although “under normal circumstances, the burden” at a § 1226 hearing “is on the
Case 1:25-cv-01219-KG-JFR Document 15 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 4

4
noncitizen” to show that detention is unwarranted, Mr. Garcia Sanchez’s “unlawful detention in
violation of his constitutional rights shifts that burden to the Government.” Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL
3187432, at *3. A noncitizen’s “strong private interest in being free from civil detention”
outweighs the Government’s “comparatively minimal burden to justify custody.” Id.
IV. Conclusion
The Court therefore grants Mr. Garcia Sanchez’s petition, Doc. 1. The Court orders that
the Government provide Mr. Garcia Sanchez with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) before an IJ
within seven days of this Order. At that hearing, the Government must justify Mr. Garcia
Sanchez’s continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. If the Government fails to
provide a bond hearing within that timeframe, it must release Mr. Garcia Sanchez.
The Court further orders the Government to file a status report within ten days of this
Order confirming that it has provided Mr. Garcia Sanchez with a bond hearing or released him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
Case 1:25-cv-01219-KG-JFR Document 15 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 4