Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
NORSULTAN MAKSATBEK UULU,
Petitioner,
v. 	1:26-cv-00129-DHU-SCY
TODD LYONS, Acting ICE Directors; MARCOS
CHARLES, ERO Acting Executive Associate
Director; KRISTI NOEM, DHS Secretary; and
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Maksatbek Uulu’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). Doc. 1. For the reasons below, the Petition is GRANTED.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Kyrgyzstan who entered the U.S. on or about August 23, 2022, and
applied for asylum shortly thereafter. Doc 1. at ¶ 1. In or around August 2022, Petitioner was
released upon filing for asylum, and following his release, he has continuously and openly resided
in Maywood, Illinois. Id. at ¶ 10.
On 	or 	about 	November 	9, 	2025, 	Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement 	(ICE)
apprehended Petitioner. Id. at ¶ 11. Petitioner was subsequently transported to the Torrance County
Detention Facility, where he remains in ICE’s custody. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13. According to Petitioner,
“[a]t no time following his entry into the United States or after applying for asylum/his release
from detention did [he] engage in any unlawful activity, commit any criminal offense, or violate
any condition of release imposed by immigration authorities.” Id. at ¶ 11.
On January 22, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, asking this Court to:
Case 1:26-cv-00129-DHU-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 4

2
(1) Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
(2) Issue a writ of habeas corpus and order Respondents to immediately release Petitioner
from ICE’s custody;
(3) Declare that Respondents' detention of Petitioner violates his Fifth Amendment right
to due process;
(4) Enjoin Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner upon his release from ICE’s custody
without: (a) providing Petitioner with prior written notice of the grounds for detention;
(b) 	affording 	Petitioner 	an 	opportunity 	to 	be 	heard 	and 	to 	present 	evidence
demonstrating that his release would not pose a danger to property or persons and that
he is likely to appear for any future proceeding; and (c) making an individualized
determination, supported by specific facts and evidence, that Petitioner poses a flight
risk or danger to the community;
(5) Award Petitioner his reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; and
(6) Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just, proper, and equitable.
Id. at 13-14.
On February 18, 2026, Respondents responded to the Petition, asserting that the facts of
this case are “substantially similar” to Requejo Roman v. Castro, CIV. A. No. 25-1076, 2026 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 15709 (D.N.M. Jan. 12, 2026), and that “this Court’s decision in R[e]quejo Roman v.
Castro, would control the result here if the Court adheres to that decision, as the facts are not
materially distinguishable for purposes of the Court’s decision on the legal issue of which statutory
provision authorizes Petitioner’s detention.” Doc. 6 at 2. Respondents did not distinguish this case
from other cases involving the detention of noncitizens already present in the United States—as
opposed to noncitizens detained at a border crossing or port of entry—but argued that Petitioner is
Case 1:26-cv-00129-DHU-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 4

3
an applicant for admission seeking admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2)(A). Id.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
Habeas relief is available 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). Petitioner seeks habeas relief,
arguing he is being unlawfully detained in violation of the INA and his Fifth Amendment due
process rights.
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the government from depriving any
person of liberty without due process of law. “Freedom from imprisonment—from government
custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause
protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). The Due Process Clause’s protections
extend to all persons in the United States, including noncitizens, “whether their presence here is
lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Id. at 693.
III. 	DISCUSSION
The facts of this case are materially indistinguishable from prior cases this Court has
decided—such as Requejo Roman and Velasquez Salazar v. Dedos et al., –––F.Supp.3d––––, 2025
WL 2676729 (D.N.M. 2025)—involving habeas petitioners who were detained within the United
States rather than at a border crossing or port of entry. “Following its decisions in Requejo
Roman and Salazar, as well as the decisions of virtually all other federal courts who have analyzed
this issue, the Court holds that noncitizens already present in the United States who entered without
inspection are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and are entitled to a bond
hearing.” Uribe v. Noem, CIV. A. No. 25-1139, 2026 WL 127621, at *3 (D.N.M. Jan. 16, 2026)
(footnote omitted).
Case 1:26-cv-00129-DHU-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 4

4
The Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner's detention and that the
Government’s misclassification of Petitioner under § 1225 and resultant denial of a bond hearing
deprived him of his right to due process. The Court further finds that Respondents failed to
articulate a legitimate interest in Petitioner's continued detention and therefore orders his
immediate release. See Doc. 8. To ensure Petitioner's due process rights are protected going
forward, the factors laid out in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), favor shifting the burden
of proof to the Government in any future bond hearing.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner's habeas petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents release Petitioner within twenty-four
(24) hours of this Order and that the parties submit a joint status report to the Court no later than
Tuesday, April 7, 2026, confirming Petitioner’s timely release. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that Respondents are RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner unless they demonstrate, by
clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation hearing, that Petitioner is a danger to his
community or a flight risk.
Petitioner may submit an application for attorney’s fees within thirty (30) days of this Order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Respondents may respond to Petitioner’s application for fees no
later than fourteen (14) days after Petitioner’s application is filed with this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HONORABLE DAVID HERRERA URIAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00129-DHU-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/02/26 Page 4 of 4