Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BIDUAI NAPOLEON HERRERA ANGEL,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-02736-KG-KRS
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO IMMEDIATELY RELEASE PETITIONER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Biduai Napoleon Herrera Angel’s pro se petition
for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”), filed August 19, 2026. See Doc. 1. Petitioner challenges his
continued detention without a bond hearing and seeks his immediate release. Doc. 1 at 3–4.
Respondents do not contest the facts presented in the Petition. See Doc. 6 at 1 (“Respondents are not
submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition detailing the facts and circumstances of this case[.]”)
The Court therefore concludes 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention. See Santillan Quiroz
v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1237 (10th Cir. 2026) (holding that “noncitizens who entered the United
States and were thereafter detained in the interior of the country are usually subject to § 1226(a) (and
thus eligible for bond), not § 1225(b)(2)(A)”). Petitioner’s detention without a bond hearing
constitutes a violation of his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. See Cortez-Gonzalez v. Noem, 811 F.Supp.3d 1287, 1298 (D.N.M. 2025) (concluding
petitioner detained pursuant to § 1226 was entitled to a bond hearing and continued detention without
such review was an ongoing violation of due process rights); Mieles-Parraga v. Bondi, No. 2:26-cv-
00646-KG-JHR, 2026 WL 776489, at *2 (D.N.M. March 19, 2026) (ruling petitioner’s detention
absent a bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process Clause).
In habeas corpus proceedings, “a federal court ‘possesses power to grant any form of relief
necessary to satisfy the requirement of justice.’” Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir.
Case 2:26-cv-02736-KG-KRS Document 7 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1992) (quoting Levy v. Dillon, 415 F.2d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 1969)). Immediate release is the
appropriate remedy for the due process violation in this case. See Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693
(2008) (“The typical remedy for [unlawful executive] detention is, of course, release.”); cf. Cruz-Reyes
v. Bondi, 818 F. Supp. 3d 875, 887 (S.D. Tex. 2026) (“Ordering a bond hearing under § 1226(a), after
[petitioner] has been taken into custody, cannot make up for the lack of an initial, individualized
determination process by ICE.”).
It is hereby ordered:
1. Respondents must immediately release (no later than forty-eight (48) hours from this
Order’s filing) Petitioner from custody.
2. Upon Petitioner’s release, Respondents must return all of his property, including any
identification documentation that was in his possession when he was detained.
Respondents shall provide a copy of this Order to Petitioner.
3. Respondents must file a status report within five (5) business days of this Order’s filing
to certify their compliance.
4. If Petitioner is re-detained prior to entry of a final order of removal, all applicable
regulations and procedures must be followed, including that Petitioner be provided a
bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a).
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 2:26-cv-02736-KG-KRS Document 7 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2