Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO MISAEL CANDO DUCHIMAZA,
Petitioner,
-v-
KENNETH GENALO, Enforcement & Removal
Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, TODD LYONS, Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, KRISTI
NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, PAMELA BONDI, Attorney
General of the United States, and RAUL
MALDONADO, JR., Warden, Metropolitan
Detention Center, Brooklyn, NY US Bureau of
Prisons,
Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
26-CV-879
ORDER GRANTING
PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Petitioner 	Eduardo 	Misael 	Cando 	Duchimaza 	is 	presently 	detained 	by
Respondents at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York.
He is a Ecuadorian citizen who has resided in the United States since September 29,
2023. Petitioner was taken into Respondents’ custody on December 15, 2025.
On February 14, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
(the “Petition”), ECF No. 1, alleging that his detention violates his constitutional and
statutory rights, and seeking entry of an order directing his immediate release from
detention.
On February 18, 2026, this case was reassigned to the undersigned, and the
Case 1:26-cv-00879-NRM Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Court issued an Order, ECF No. 5, directing Respondents to file, by 9:00 AM on
February 19, 2026, a submission (1) providing certain information about Petitioner
and his circumstances, (2) indicating the statutory provision under which they assert
the authority to detain Petitioner, and (3) addressing whether there is any basis to
distinguish the asserted grounds for detention from the Court’s decision in Hyppolite
v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4304 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025), or from
any other prior decisions issued by the undersigned in this area of law. 	The Court
further directed that, if Respondents asserted no basis to distinguish this Petition
from the Court’s analysis in Hyppolite or another decision of this Court, the
submission could take the form of a letter so stating, and indicating whether
Respondents oppose issuance of the writ, subject to preservation of Respondents’
arguments for appeal. 	Finally, the Court’s February 18, 2026 Order directed
Respondents, in the event they took the position that this case is distinguishable from
Hyppolite, to respond to the Petition and to show cause as to why it should not be
granted on or before February 21, 2026 at 9:00 AM; to further affirm that they have
provided the Court with all facts material to Petitioner’s claims and Respondents’
opposition to those claims; and to attach all exhibits related to those facts.
Following a request for an extension of time, Respondents filed a submission
on February 20, 2026. ECF No. 7. In their response, Respondents did not attach any
exhibits relating to the circumstances under which Petitioner was detained, nor their
justification for detaining him. 	Instead, Respondents have averred that they are
presently detaining Petitioner under the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C.
Case 1:26-cv-00879-NRM Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). ECF No. 7 at 2.1 Respondents do not state that further submissions
or a hearing are necessary at this time to adjudicate the questions presented in this
petition, and they offer no basis to distinguish the issues in this case from those at
issue in Hyppolite v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4304 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511 (E.D.N.Y. Oct.
6, 2025). 	Id. at 1–2. 	In its decision in Hyppolite, this Court previously considered
and rejected Respondents’ claims as to the application of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to
persons whom Respondents agree are similarly situated to Mr. Cando Duchimaza.
Petitioner has alleged, and Respondents do not dispute, that Respondents did
not provide him with notice and an individualized bond hearing, which this Court
found in Hyppolite is required for persons similarly situated to Petitioner.
Accordingly, as it did in Hyppolite, the Court finds that Petitioner has
established that his detention violates his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due
process, because Petitioner has lived in the United States for approximately two and
a half years and is therefore entitled to an individualized bond hearing under the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Hyppolite v. Noem, 25 CV
4303 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511, at *12–16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025); see also, e.g.,
Artiga v. Genalo, No. 25 CV 5208 (OEM), 2025 WL 2829434, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5,
2025); Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 498–99 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025);
Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25 CV 05240 (TMC), 2025 WL 2782499, at *16–26 (W.D.
Wash. Sep. 30, 2025); Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25 CV 06924 (EMC), 2025 WL
2637503, at *6–13 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2025); Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25 CV 3682,
1 References to page numbers use ECF pagination.
Case 1:26-cv-00879-NRM Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
2025 WL 2802947, at *5 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025) (collecting cases). 	Similarly, the
Court finds that Petitioner has established that the mandatory detention provisions
of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) and (b)(2) relied upon by Respondents to justify the legality
of Petitioner’s detention are inapplicable here, because Petitioner has been living
continuously in the United States and is not “seeking admission” under Section 1225.
The Court hereby incorporates by reference its earlier analysis of these issues
in Hyppolite, 2025 WL 2829511, at *6–16. Given that neither the Second Circuit nor
the United States Supreme Court has yet to address this precise question, the Court
adheres to the reasoning of its earlier decision and the near-unanimous conclusion
reached by hundreds of other district courts nationwide who have considered the
issue to date. Cf. Resp., ECF No. 7 at 2 n.1 (citing the decisions of two district courts
within the Second Circuit adopting Respondents’ analysis).
The Court also finds that Petitioner has established that his detention without
a 	bond 	hearing 	violates 	his 	right 	to 	procedural 	due 	process 	under 	the 	Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978
F.3d 842, 851 (2d Cir. 2020) (noting that “the most significant liberty interest”
recognized under the Constitution is “the interest in being free from imprisonment”).
The Court has weighed the factors under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976),
which applies when courts in the Second Circuit are called upon to determine “the
adequacy 	of 	process 	in 	the 	context 	of 	civil 	immigration 	confinement.” 	Munoz
Materano v. Artera, No. 25 CV 6137, 2025 WL 2630826, at *12 (S.D.N.Y., Sep. 12,
2025). Having considered (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official
Case 1:26-cv-00879-NRM Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures
used; and (3) the government's interest, including the fiscal and administrative
burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail, see Mathews, 424
U.S. at 335, the Court finds that the balance of interests weighs heavily in Petitioner’s
favor, and that granting the writ is an appropriate remedy for the deprivation of his
right to procedural due process.
It is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 is GRANTED. 	It is further ORDERED that Respondents must release
Petitioner from custody no later than 5:00 PM on Friday, February 20, 2026.
In light of the fact that Petitioner is presently being held at MDC in Brooklyn,
New York, it is further ORDERED that counsel for Respondents shall keep
Petitioner’s counsel informed regarding the timing, location, and manner of
Petitioner’s release from custody, so that counsel may be present or arrange to
have a family member or other representative present at the time of Petitioner’s
release.
Respondents, through counsel, shall file a letter on the docket no later
than 8:00 PM on that same date (Friday, February 20, 2026), confirming that
Petitioner has been released from custody, and shall send a courtesy copy of that
letter by electronic mail to morrison_chambers@nyed.uscourts.gov and to Petitioner’s
counsel at the email address listed in the Petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents are ENJOINED from re-
Case 1:26-cv-00879-NRM Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
detaining Petitioner, absent prior authorization of this Court and without notice and
an opportunity to be heard at a pre-deprivation bond hearing, at which Respondents
will bear the burden of showing that his detention is authorized under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a).
The Court’s earlier order scheduling a hearing for February 25, 2026 is hereby
vacated in light of the Court’s resolution of the merits of the petition. 	Petitioner’s
counsel may submit an application for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal
Access to Justice Act within the time provided by the Local Rules.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2026 	/s/ Nina R. Morrison
Brooklyn, New York 	Nina R. Morrison
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00879-NRM Document 8 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>