Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JUAN CARLOS CHAVELAS DIEGO,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:26-cv-00828-KG-SCY
GEORGE DEDOS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Juan Carlos Chavelas Diego’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Doc. 1. Because Petitioner’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.
I. Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. Doc. 5 at 1. He entered the United States in
2001 and married a United States citizen in 2014. Doc. 1 at 12. The Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”) arrested Petitioner on December 9, 2025, in the parking lot of a McDonald’s
restaurant in Cicero, Illinois. Id. An immigration judge denied Petitioner’s request for a change in
custody status. Id. at 13. As of the filing of this petition, Petitioner had not been ordered removed.1
Doc. 1 at 12, Doc. 5 at 3.
Petitioner challenges his mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, arguing that his
continued detainment without a bond hearing violates due process. Doc. 1 at 13–15. Petitioner also
1Petitioner was scheduled for removal proceedings before an immigration judge on April 7,
2026. Doc. 5 at 3. Neither party has suggested that the results of that hearing impact the Court’s
analysis.
Case 1:26-cv-00828-KG-SCY Document 6 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 5

2
claims that “[t]he Government is judicially estopped from asserting that Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention.” Id. at 15. The Government opposes the motion. See generally Doc. 5.
II. Standard of Review
A habeas petition seeks “release from unlawful physical confinement.” Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). Habeas review is proper where an immigration detainee is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
III. Analysis
For the reasons below, the Court concludes that (A) § 1226 governs Petitioner’s detention,
and (B) Petitioner’s detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (C)
release is warranted.
A. Petitioner’s detainment violates the INA.
“Sections 1225 and 1226 govern the detention of noncitizens prior to a final order of
removal.” Cortez-Gonzalez v. Noem, 811 F. Supp. 3d 1287, 1295 (D.N.M. 2025). Section 1225
governs noncitizens who are detained at a port of entry or shortly after entry. Dep’t of Homeland
Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020). This includes noncitizens deemed to be “seeking
admission” into the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a), as well as those placed in expedited removal
proceedings under § 1225(b)(1). The provision “mandate[s] detention of applicants for admission
until certain proceedings have concluded.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018).
By contrast, § 1226 “applies to [noncitizens] already present in the United States.” Id. at
303. Section 1226 permits, but does not require, the Attorney General to arrest and detain a
noncitizen pending removal proceedings. Id. “Noncitizens detained pursuant to § 1226(a) are
therefore generally entitled to individualized bond hearings as described by federal regulation.”
Cortez-Gonzalez, 811 F. Supp. 3d at 1295.
Case 1:26-cv-00828-KG-SCY Document 6 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Section 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention. 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).2
Noncitizens, like Petitioner, who reside in the country are “no longer seeking to enter the United
States (lawfully or otherwise)—they are already here.” Cortez-Gonzalez, 811 F. Supp. 3d at 1296
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Petitioner has lived in the United States since 2001
and has been married to a United States citizen since 2014. Doc. 1 at 12. Petitioner was arrested in
Cicero, Illinois—away from the border or a port of entry. Id. At the time of his arrest, Petitioner
had been present in the United States for more than two decades. Id. Given his presence in the
United States, the Court concludes that § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention and his prolonged
confinement without an individualized bond hearing violates the INA.
The Court’s conclusion is well supported by prior decisions. The Government concedes that
the material facts here are materially indistinguishable from those in Patel v. Noem, 2026 WL
103163 (D.N.M.), where the Court held that § 1226 governed the detention of a noncitizen present
in the United States and not apprehended at or near the border. See Doc. 5 at 2–3. The Court has
reached the same conclusion in numerous similar cases. See, e.g., Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-Ybarra,
2025 WL 3187432, at *3 (D.N.M.); Arroyo Lopez v. Noem, 2026 WL 776332, at *3 (D.N.M.);
Aguilar v. Lyons, 2026 WL 851237, at *2 (D.N.M.). The Government acknowledges that these
decisions control here if followed. Doc. 5 at 2–3. Because the Government offers no new basis for
Petitioner’s continued detention, he is entitled to relief.
B. Petitioner’s detention violates the Due Process Clause.
2While the Fifth Circuit holds 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 the question.
Case 1:26-cv-00828-KG-SCY Document 6 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 5

4
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the Government from depriving any
person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V.
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical
restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533
U.S. at 690. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles [noncitizens] to due process of
law in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993); see also Zadvydas, 533
U.S. at 693. The Government’s power to admit or exclude aliens is no longer plenary once an alien
enters the country, because the Due Process Clause applies to “all persons.” Landon v. Plasencia,
459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982) (“Once an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the
ties that go with permanent residence his constitutional status changes accordingly.”). Given that §
1226(a) is controlling here, Petitioner “is entitled—as a right—to an individualized bond hearing.”
Cortez-Gonzalez v. Noem, 2025 WL 3485771, at *5 (D.N.M.). Petitioner’s continued detention
without such review “constitutes an ongoing violation of [his] right to due process.” Id.
C. The proper remedy is release.
The Court next turns to the appropriate remedy. Federal courts are authorized under § 2243
to “dispose of [a habeas petition] as law and justice require” and thus possess broad discretion to
fashion appropriate relief. Clayton v. Jones, 700 F.3d 435, 443 (10th Cir. 2012); see also Burton v.
Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting that a federal court “possesses power to grant
any form of relief necessary to satisfy the requirement of justice”) (emphasis in original). Given the
Government’s conduct here, release is warranted. See Singh v. Carnes, 2026 WL 446579, at *1
(D.N.M.) (ordering release where the Government “failed to articulate a legitimate interest in
Petitioner’s continued detention”); Palomeque-Carrion v. Bondi, 2026 WL 895567, at *2 (D.N.M.)
(same); Alfaro Herrera v. Baltazar, 2026 WL 91470, at *1 (D. Colo.) (same).
III. Conclusion
Case 1:26-cv-00828-KG-SCY Document 6 Filed 04/22/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Because the Court grants Petitioner’s release under the INA and the Due Process Claim, it
declines to consider Petitioner’s remaining claims. The Court orders that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is granted. The Government shall release
Petitioner within 24 hours of this Order. The Government shall not impose any new
conditions of release beyond those in place prior to Petitioner’s detention.
2. The Government is enjoined from redetaining Petitioner absent a predetention hearing
before a neutral Immigration Judge under § 1226(a), at which the Government must
establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk.
3. The Government shall file a status report within ten (10) business days of this Order
certifying compliance.
4. The Court does not address Petitioner requests for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to
Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Such a request must be made by separate motion. Ndou v.
Noem, 2026 WL 686564, at *5 (D.N.M.).
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-00828-KG-SCY Document 6 Filed 04/22/26 Page 5 of 5