Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CARLOS ANDRES ARZAYUS
RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-01317
DORA CASTRO, Warden of the Otero
County Processing Center; TODD LYONS,
Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; MARKWAYNE
MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; TODD BLANCHE,
Acting Attorney General of the United States;
and MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, El Paso
Field Office Director, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 2241 AND ORDERING A BOND HEARING
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Carlos Andres Arzayus Rodriguez’s
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed April
27, 2026. On May 12, 2026, the Federal Respondents (“Respondents”) filed a Response
(“Response”).1 ECF No. 6. Upon review of the Parties’ submissions, the record, and the relevant
law, the Court will GRANT the Petition and order a bond hearing.
1 The Clerk’s Office served all Respondents with the Petition pursuant to this District’s Standing
Order Regarding Service of Process in Immigration Habeas Petitions filed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Case 1:26-
mc-00004, ECF No. 3 (D.N.M. Jan. 28, 2026). ECF No. 3. However, as has become customary in these cases, the
Warden did not respond to the Petition.
Case 2:26-cv-01317-MIS-DLM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 1 of 5

2
I. Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Venezuela who entered the United States illegally at an unknown
place on an unknown date. See Form I-213 Narrative at 2, ECF No. 6-1. On May 17, 2024, U.S.
Border Patrol Agents encountered Petitioner in El Paso, Texas, determined that he was not a U.S.
citizen or lawful permanent resident, and placed him under arrest.2 Id. at 2-3. The same day,
Petitioner filed an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. Id. at 3. On May 23,
2024, Petitioner was given a positive credible fear determination and released on his own
recognizance. See id.; see also Resp. at 3. According to Petitioner, he received humanitarian
parole. Pet. at 6.
Thereafter, Petitioner violated the conditions of his release several times, including four
failed home visits and four failed biometric check-ins. Form I-213 Narrative at 3. Consequently,
on October 23, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers arrested
Petitioner in Maryland and transported him to a detention facility in El Paso, Texas. Id. at 2.
Petitioner has been in detention ever since, Resp. at 3, and is currently detained at the Otero County
Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico, Pet. at 2. According to Respondents, Petitioner has
an asylum hearing on May 19, 2026. Resp. at 3.
On April 27, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. ECF No. 1. On April 28, 2026, the
Court ordered Respondents to answer the Petition and show cause why it should not be granted.
ECF No. 4. On May 12, 2026, Respondents filed their Response. ECF No. 6.
2 The Form I-213 Narrative states that this encounter occurred on May 17, 2025. ECF No. 6-1 at 2.
However, based on the representations contained in the remainder of the narrative, the Court believes that this is a
typographical error, and that the encounter occurred on May 17, 2024.
Case 2:26-cv-01317-MIS-DLM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 2 of 5

3
II. Legal Standard
Federal courts possess authority to review the legality of executive detention through the
writ of habeas corpus. Title 28, United States Code, section 2241 grants district courts the
discretion to issue a writ of habeas corpus when a person is “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), (c)(3). The Tenth
Circuit has recognized that “[c]hallenges to immigration detention are properly brought directly
through habeas.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001)).
III. Discussion
Petitioner argues that his continued detention violates his rights under the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pet. at 6. He seeks immediate release from custody. Id. at 7.
Respondents argue that Petitioner is an “arriving alien” subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the detention
determination. Resp. at 2, 6-9, 10-11. They further argue that because Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under Section 1225(b), he is not entitled to any due process. Id. at 2, 11-12.
Finally, they argue that “Respondents[’] conduct, as a matter of law, was not arbitrary, capricious,
an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” Id. at 2; see also id. at 12.
Initially, the Court rejects Respondents’ argument that Petitioner is an “arriving alien”
subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Rather, for the reasons explained in this
Court’s decision in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, 2:25-cv-01113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M.
Jan. 13, 2026), the Court finds that Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), his
continued detention without a bond hearing violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process,
and, as such, he is eligible for habeas relief.
Case 2:26-cv-01317-MIS-DLM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 3 of 5

4
“Congress invested federal courts with discretion when it comes to supplying habeas
relief—providing that they ‘may’ (not must) grant writs of habeas corpus, and that they should do
so only as ‘law and justice require.’” Brown v. Davenport, 596 U.S. 118, 132 (2022) (first quoting
28 U.S.C. § 2241, then quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2243). Habeas corpus “is an ‘adaptable remedy,’ and
the ‘precise application and scope’ of the review it guarantees may change ‘depending upon the
circumstances.’” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 152 (2020) (Breyer, J.,
concurring) (quoting Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779 (2008)).
Under the unique facts of this case, the Court finds that ordering Petitioner’s immediate
release is not the appropriate remedy. Petitioner was released from his initial immigration
detention on his own recognizance on May 23, 2024. See Form I-213 Narrative, ECF No. 6-1 at
3; Resp. at 3. DHS rearrested Petitioner on October 23, 2025 because Petitioner violated the
conditions of his release at least eight times between September 17, 2024, and July 22, 2025. Form
I-213 Narrative, ECF No. 6-1 at 3; Resp. at 3. The Court also observes that the Petition states that
since Petitioner filed his application for asylum, he “do[es] not have a completely clean criminal
record.” Pet. at 6. It is possible that this is a grammatical mistake, as Respondents do not accuse
Petitioner of having a criminal history, and the record does not reflect one.
In any event, the Court concludes that ordering a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy
in this case, as the Court finds that whether and under what conditions Petitioner should be released
is better left to the sound discretion of an immigration judge at a bond hearing. See Lopez-Romero,
2026 WL 92873, at *7.
Case 2:26-cv-01317-MIS-DLM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IV. Conclusion
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Carlos Andres Arzayus Rodriguez’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an individualized and
constitutionally adequate bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of the date of this Order;
3. The Immigration Judge shall not consider 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) or Matter of Yajure
Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), and if the Immigration Judge finds that
Petitioner shall remain in detention, the Immigration Judge shall adequately explain
the reasons for detention such that this Court can determine whether the bond
hearing was constitutionally adequate;
4. Respondents shall file a status report within three days of Petitioner’s bond hearing
advising the Court as to whether bond was granted or denied, and shall attach the
Immigration Judge’s Order thereto; and
5. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction to enforce this Order.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-01317-MIS-DLM Document 7 Filed 05/15/26 Page 5 of 5