Tenesaca-Yanchatuna 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
William Rodrigo Tenesaca-Yanchatuna,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-04615-PHX-KML (ASB)
ORDER
Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 (Doc. 1.) The petition presents
the recurring issue whether a particular individual is subject to mandatory detention under
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). District courts have split on this issue as set forth in Zepeda v. Noem,
CV-25-4236-PHX-KML (JFM), ECF No. 13 at 2–3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 11, 2025). On
December 11, 2025, 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). Based on existing district court authority and the Seventh Circuit’s
opinion, respondents must show cause why the petition should not be granted to the extent
1 Petitioner also filed an expedited motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary
injunction. (Doc. 2.) That motion appears to consist of portions taken from other filings as
the exact relief being requested is not consistent throughout the motion. But regardless of
the inconsistency, because the court is directing respondents to show cause why the petition
should not be granted, the court finds petitioner is not entitled to preliminary relief at this
juncture. The motion is denied without prejudice.
Case 2:25-cv-04615-KML--ASB Document 4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 2

- 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
that petitioner be provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226.2
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Petitioner’s expedited motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary
injunction (Doc. 2) is denied without prejudice.
2. Counsel for petitioner must immediately serve the petition upon respondents.
3. If not already issued, the clerk’s office must issue any properly completed
summonses.
4. The clerk of court must immediately transmit by email a copy of this order and the
petition to the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, to the attention of
Katherine Branch at katherine.branch@usdoj.gov, Melissa Kroeger at
melissa.kroeger@usdoj.gov, Lon Leavitt at lon.leavitt@usdoj.gov, and Theo
Nickerson at Theo.Nickerson2@usdoj.gov.
5. Respondents must show cause no later than December 17, 2025 why the petition
should not be granted. Petitioner may file a reply no later than December 19, 2025.
Dated this 12th day of December, 2025.
2 The petition seeks relief in the form of release from detention and a prohibition on
removing petitioner from the United States. (Doc. 1 at 24.) Courts handling similar cases
have granted bond hearings, not release. Quinapanta v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-795-WMC,
2025 WL 3157867, at *6 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 12, 2025) (“more than 45 district courts have
. . . ordered bond hearings”).
Case 2:25-cv-04615-KML--ASB Document 4 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 2