Godinez-Juarez v. Noem et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Kelvin Douglas Godinez-Juarez,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-04409-PHX-KML (DMF)
ORDER
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc.
1.) In a December 3, 2025 order (“the OSC”), the court ordered respondents to show cause
why the petition should not be granted. (Doc. 5.) The OSC is fully briefed. (Docs. 8, 9.)
The petition is granted and respondents must release petitioner or provide him a bond
hearing.
Petitioner was born in Guatemala but has lived in the United States for
approximately eighteen years. (Doc. 1 at 2, 4.) He applied for a U-visa in December 2023
and received a bona fide determination and employment authorization from U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services on May 14, 2025. (Doc. 1-1 at 51–52.) Yet Petitioner
was arrested by federal agents on September 10, 2025. (Doc. 1-1 at 41.) Petitioner has not
been provided a bond hearing and he believes “filing a motion for bond redetermination
would be futile” because of Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N 216 (B.I.A. 2025). (Doc. 2
at 4.) Respondents state they are aware of prior decisions by this court and others rejecting
their position that individuals such as petitioner should be deemed “arriving aliens” not
Case 2:25-cv-04409-KML--DMF Document 10 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
entitled to bond hearings. (Doc. 8 at 11.) Respondents, however, “respectfully maintain
that Petitioner falls within the definition of an ‘arriving alien’ warranting mandatory
detention as the removal process unfolds.” (Doc. 8 at 11.)
The court recently considered and rejected respondents’ arguments on this point in
a similar case. Zepeda v. Noem, CV-25-4236-PHX-KML (D. Ariz. Dec. 11, 2025). On the
same day this court issued Zepeda, the Seventh Circuit concluded the Department of
Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were “not likely
to succeed on the merits of their argument” regarding “mandatory detention under
§ 1225(b)(2)(A).” Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 25-3050, 2025 WL
3552514, at *9 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2025). And on December 18, 2025, the Central District
of California entered judgment in a class action that respondents concede covers petitioner
(Doc. 8 at 15) declaring “the Bond Eligible Class members are detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)” and vacating
“the Department of Homeland Security policy described in the July 8, 2025, ‘Interim
Guidance Regarding Detention Authority for Applicants for Admission’ under the
Administrative Procedure Act as not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).”
Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, Doc. 94 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025).
Based on these events and respondents’ failure to point to any argument this court
and others have overlooked, petitioner is entitled to relief. The petition is granted, and
petitioner must be released immediately or provided a bond hearing within ten days without
regard to Matter of Yajure Hurtado.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Case 2:25-cv-04409-KML--DMF Document 10 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is granted.
2. Within ten days of this order respondents must either release petitioner or provide a
bond hearing without regard to Matter of Yajure Hurtado.
3. Respondents must provide a notice of compliance within five days.
4. The clerk of court shall enter judgment in petitioner’s favor and close this
case.
Dated this 23rd day of December, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-04409-KML--DMF Document 10 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 3