Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MILAD SOBHI GAMIL HINEIN,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00366-MIS-DLM
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, Department of
Homeland 	Security; 	PAMELA 	BONDI,
Attorney 	General 	of 	the 	United 	States;
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director of U.S.
Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement;
MARY DE ANDA YBARRA, Director of the
El Paso Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and Warden of the
Torrance County Detention Center,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Milad Sobhi Gamil Hinein’s Verified
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 2, filed February 11, 2026. Respondents
Kristi 	Noem, 	Pamela 	Bondi, 	Todd 	M. 	Lyons, 	and 	Mary 	De 	Anda-Ybarra 	(“Federal
Respondents”),1 filed a Response on February 25, 2026, ECF No. 8.
Counsel for Respondents acknowledges the facts of this case are “substantially similar” to
Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-CV-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20895 (D.N.M. Feb. 2,
2026), Resp. at 2, ECF No. 8, and that “this Court’s decision in Duhan v. Noem, would control the
1 	Respondent Warden of Torrance County Detention Center did not file a response or otherwise
appear in this case. It has become standard practice in these habeas cases for the warden of the relevant detention
center to either appear and adopt the federal respondents’ arguments, see, e.g., Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem, Case No.
1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF, Notice of Joinder In USA Respondents’ Forthcoming Claims and Defenses, ECF No. 11
(D.N.M. Dec. 3, 2025), or not appear at all, see Francisco v. Dedos, Case No. 1:25-cv-01229-MIS-GJF, Proposed
Findings and Recommended Disposition at 8, ECF No. 53 (D.N.M. Jan. 20, 2026).
Case 1:26-cv-00366-MIS-DLM Document 9 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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,” id. at 3. Counsel 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 an applicant for
admission seeking admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Id. at
1-3.
Ultimately, the Court finds that the facts of this case are materially indistinguishable from
prior cases the Undersigned Judge has decided involving habeas petitioners who were detained
within the United States, rather than at a border crossing or port of entry, and adopts the findings
contained in its Order Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons,
Case No. 2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026). Briefly, the Court
finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, his continued detention without a
bond hearing violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and, as such, he is entitled to
habeas relief. The Court further finds that Respondents failed to articulate a legitimate interest in
Petitioner’s continued detention and therefore orders his immediate release. See generally Resp.,
ECF No. 8. The Court further orders that Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a pre-
deprivation bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at
which the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or
flight risk. Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order and to
entertain any motions for attorneys’ fees.
Case 1:26-cv-00366-MIS-DLM Document 9 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Milad Sobhi Gamil Hinein’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
ECF No. 2, is GRANTED;
2. 	Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention;
3. 	Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation hearing
before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk;
4. 	Respondents SHALL NOT impose any new condition of release;
5. 	Counsel for Federal Respondents SHALL provide a copy of this order to Counsel
for the Warden of the Torrance County Detention Center;
6. 	Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order; and
7. 	The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order and to entertain
any motions for attorneys’ fees.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00366-MIS-DLM Document 9 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 3