Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MAURICIO MARTINEZ ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:26-cv-00287-KG-JFR
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Mauricio Martinez Ortiz’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 6. For the reasons below,
petitioner’s habeas petition is granted.
I. Background
Mr. Martinez Ortiz, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1997 without
inspection. Doc. 1 at 7. He resides in Minnesota and has no criminal history, aside from “minor
traffic-related matters.” Id. at 7–8. In 2013, “with the non-opposition of the Department of
Homeland Security,” the Executive Office of Immigration Review “dismissed his removal
proceedings because” Mr. Martinez Ortiz “was not a priority for enforcement.” Id.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) “apprehended Mr. Martinez Ortiz in
Minnesota.” Id. The Government has not provided him with a bond hearing, asserting the
immigration court “lacks the jurisdiction to conduct a bond redetermination hearing.” Id. He “is
presently held in ICE custody at the Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, New
Mexico.” Id. at 8–9. Mr. Martinez Ortiz argues his detention violates the Immigration and
Case 1:26-cv-00287-KG-JFR Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 19–21. He
seeks release, or, in the alternative, a bond hearing within seven days. Id. at 23.
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 concludes that (A) 8 U.S.C. § 1226 governs Mr.
Martinez Ortiz’s detention, (B) Mr. Martinez Ortiz’s detention violates his right to due process,
and (C) the proper remedy is a bond hearing where the Government bears the burden of proof.
A. Section 1226 governs Mr. Martinez Ortiz’s detention.
The 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 second detention regime
are entitled to individualized bond hearings at the outset of detention.” Id.
Consistent with the overwhelming majority of district courts to consider the issue and this
Court’s prior findings, the Court concludes that § 1226 governs here. See Barco Mercado v.
Case 1:26-cv-00287-KG-JFR Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 5

3
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. The Court acknowledges the recent Fifth
Circuit decision holding that “[w]hile [noncitizens] remain applicants” for admission, “they
are...seeking admission.” Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 323330, at *5
(5th Cir.). The Tenth Circuit has not yet addressed this question.
Under this framework, § 1226 governs Mr. Martinez Ortiz’s detention. ICE arrested him
approximately 29 years after his initial entry into the United States and apprehended him in
Minnesota, not at the border. Doc. 1 at 7–8. Accordingly, § 1225’s mandatory detention
provision does not apply because Mr. Martinez Ortiz effected an entry into the United States by
living here for three decades. Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3. As the Government
concedes, the facts of this case are “substantially similar” to those in Patel v. Noem, 2026 WL
103163 (D.N.M.), where this Court granted relief. Doc. 6 at 2.
B. Mr. Martinez Ortiz’s detention violates his right to due process.
Courts analyze due process claims in two steps: first, whether there exists “a protected
liberty interest under the Due Process Clause,” and second, whether the procedures used to
Case 1:26-cv-00287-KG-JFR Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 5

4
deprive that interest “accord with the Constitution.” Domingo v. Castro, 2025 WL 2941217, at
*3 (D.N.M.). Here, Mr. Martinez Ortiz has a protected liberty interest. By living in the United
States, noncitizens acquire “a protectable liberty interest in remaining out of custody.”
Danierov, 2026 WL 45288, at *2. Mr. Martinez Ortiz’s freedom allowed “him to do a wide
range of things,” including to live at home, work, and “be with family and friends and to form
the other enduring attachments of normal life.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972).
Mr. Martinez Ortiz was also entitled to procedural safeguards before he was detained. In
determining what process is due, courts consider (1) “the private interest” affected; (2) “the risk
of erroneous deprivation” through the procedures used and the probable value of additional
safeguards; and (3) “the Government’s interest,” including the fiscal and administrative burdens
of additional procedures. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). To start, Mr.
Martinez Ortiz’s private interest in remaining free from detention is substantial. “Freedom from
imprisonment...lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas
v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). There is also a significant risk of erroneous deprivation.
Courts require “a material change in circumstances as to whether the noncitizen poses a danger
to the community or an unreasonable risk of flight” before revoking a noncitizen’s freedom.
Danierov, 2026 WL 45288, at *2. Mr. Martinez Ortiz was detained after 29 years in the United
States. Doc. 2 at 3. No assessment was made as to whether any material facts had changed,
creating a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation of his liberty interest. Finally, the
Government’s interest in detaining Mr. Martinez Ortiz without a hearing is limited, and the
administrative burden of providing a bond hearing is minimal. See Danierov, 2026 WL 45288,
at *2 (the “cost of providing a bond determination is not terribly burdensome”).
Case 1:26-cv-00287-KG-JFR Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 5

5
C. 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. Martinez Ortiz is a flight risk or danger to the
community. Although “under normal circumstances, the burden” at a § 1226 hearing “is on the
noncitizen” to show that detention is unwarranted, Mr. Martinez Ortiz’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. Martinez Ortiz’s petition, Doc. 1. The Court directs the
Government to provide Mr. Martinez Ortiz with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) before an
immigration judge within seven days of this Order. At that hearing, the Government must justify
Mr. Martinez Ortiz’s detention by clear and convincing evidence. If the Government fails to do
so, it must release Mr. Martinez Ortiz. The Court also orders the Government to file a status
report within ten days of this Order confirming that it has provided Mr. Martinez Ortiz 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 1:26-cv-00287-KG-JFR Document 7 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 5