Tumax Caniz v. Warden et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 25-cv-03969-NRN
MARIO JOSE TUMAX CANIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Denver Contract Detention Facility,
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Denver Field
Office, Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
MARKWAYNE MULLIN,1 in his official capacity as Secretary of U.S. Department of
Homeland Security;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents.
ORDER
N. REID NEUREITER
United States Magistrate Judge
This case is before the Court on Mario Jose Tumax Caniz’s (“Petitioner”) Verified
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Emergency Relief (the
“Petition”). ECF No. 2. Petitioner is a detainee at the Denver Contract Detention Facility
in Aurora, Colorado. Id. ¶ 8. He contends that Respondents are improperly subjecting
him to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Instead, he says, 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a) governs his detention. Because this is a fundamentally legal debate, there is no
1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Markwayne Mullin, in his official capacity as
Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has automatically been substituted
as a party to this action.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03969-NRN Document 16 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 6

2
need for a hearing on the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the reasons that follow,
the Court GRANTS IN PART the Petition.
BACKGROUND
This case is one of numerous cases in this District and across the country
seeking habeas relief for immigrants detained within the United States and denied bond
hearings under a new interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226. E.g., Olivas v. Baltazar,
No. 26-cv-00777-NRN, 2026 WL 672897 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2026), Vasquez Gomez v.
Bondi, No. 26-cv-00489-NRN, 2026 WL 482677 (D. Colo. Feb. 20, 2026); Diaz Marquez
v. Baltasar, No. 26-cv-00293-CYC, 2026 WL 370864 (D. Colo. Feb. 10, 2026); Abarca
v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-04086-CYC, 2026 WL 309198 (D. Colo. Feb. 5, 2026);
Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-2 PAB, 2026 WL 290989 (D. Colo. Feb.
4, 2026); Jimenez Facio v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03592-CYC, 2025 WL 3559128 (D.
Colo. Dec. 12, 2025); Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02677-CNS, 2025 WL
2652880 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025); Batz Barreno v. Baltasar, No. 25-cv-03017-GPG-
TPO, 2025 WL 3190936 (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2025); Loa Caballero v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-
03120-NYW, 2025 WL 2977650 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2025). Petitioner asks that
Respondents release him or, in the alternative, provide him with a bond hearing
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days. ECF No. 2 at 13.
Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who has been in immigration detention since
November 13, 2025. Id. ¶ 15. He has resided in the United States since August 26,
2013. Id. ¶ 40. Upon entry to the United States, Petitioner was inspected by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), which issued a Notice of Custody
Determination indicating that Petitioner was detained “[p]ursuant to the authority
Case No. 1:25-cv-03969-NRN Document 16 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 6

3
contained in section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Id. DHS also issued a
Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging Petitioner with inadmissibility under section
212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") as “an alien present in the
United States who has not been admitted or paroled,” and thereby initiated removal
proceedings against Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). Id. ¶ 41. After processing by
DHS, Petitioner was identified as an “Unaccompanied Alien Child” and transferred into
the custody of the U.S. Health and Human Services (“HHS”), Office of Refugee
Resettlement (“ORR”). Id. ¶ 42. On October 10, 2023, HHS released Petitioner into the
custody of his father. Id. ¶ 43. On May 20, 2014, Petitioner’s removal proceedings in
Miami were administratively closed and have recently been re-calendared for May 3,
2029 at the Miami Immigration Court. Id. ¶ 44. Petitioner is married and has two United
States citizen children and resides in Lantana, Florida with his family. Id. ¶ 45. He has
no criminal history and his employment as a painter is the primary source of financial
support for his family. Id. On November 13, 2025, Petitioner was arrested in the
presence of his eight year old daughter as he was taking her to school. Id. ¶ 46. He has
been detained, separated from his wife and minor children, without a bond hearing
since that time. Id. ¶ 48.
Petitioner argues that his detention violates the INA and the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 51–57.
Respondents maintain that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under §
1225(b). Respondents’ statutory interpretation has been rejected by this Court as well
as several other judges in this District. See Vasquez Gomez, 2026 WL 482677, at *2;
Jimenez Facio, 2025 WL 3559128, at *2 (recognizing that “every decision in this District
Case No. 1:25-cv-03969-NRN Document 16 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 6

4
addressing the issue” has determined that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to persons,
like Petitioner, who have already been residing in the United States for years).
ANALYSIS
A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to any person who
demonstrates he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes “[c]hallenges to immigration detention.”
Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004). The individual in custody
bears the burden of proving that their detention is unlawful. Walker v. Johnston, 312
U.S. 275, 286 (1941). To meet that burden, Petitioner argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
applies to him; “that aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the
outset of detention,” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (citing 8 C.F.R.
§§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)); see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (providing for discretionary
detention); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (providing framework for requesting a bond
determination); and that he has received no such hearing.
As this Court and others in this District have repeatedly found in similar cases,
Petitioner has met his burden showing that his continued detention without a bond
hearing is unlawful. See Diaz Marquez, 2026 WL 370864, at *1 (“The Court remains
firmly convinced that it and the other judges in the District who have addressed this
issue have correctly decided those cases.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner
has a statutory right to a bond hearing that has not been provided, in violation of
Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights, see Jimenez Facio, 2025
WL 3559128, at *3 (“Resolution of the due-process question may be unnecessary[,] . . .
[b]ut to the extent it is, ‘the Court agrees with other courts that have, against
Case No. 1:25-cv-03969-NRN Document 16 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 6

5
substantially similar factual backgrounds, concluded that detention without a bond
hearing amounts to a due process violation.’”) (quoting Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 25-
cv-02677-CNS, 2025 WL 2652880, at *4 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025)); and the INA, see
Abanil v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-4029-WJM-STV, 2026 WL 100587, at *6 (D. Colo. Jan. 14,
2026) (“The Court joins its colleagues in this District and those courts across the country
that have concluded Respondents’ interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A) is contrary to the
INA’s plain text. As a consequence, the Court also concludes that Garcia Abanil’s
detention pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the INA, and that he is instead properly
considered to be detained under § 1226(a).”).
Petitioner also requests attorney fees and costs. ECF No. 2 at 13. But
D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3(a) requires that “a motion for attorney fees . . . be supported by
affidavit,” and no such affidavit supported the request. Further, “a motion involving a
contested issue of law shall . . . be supported by a recitation of legal authority in the
motion.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). As a result, the Court denies this portion of the
Petition without prejudice. If the Petitioner chooses to file a motion for attorney fees, it
must comply with all applicable rules and provide legal authority for the request. See
L.G. v. Choate, 744 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1187 (D. Colo. 2024).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition, ECF No. 2, is
GRANTED IN PART as follows.
It is further ORDERED that
1) Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a) within seven days of this Order. At the bond hearing, Respondents bear
Case No. 1:25-cv-03969-NRN Document 16 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 6

6
the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner’s
continued detention is justified due to dangerousness or flight risk. See Abanil,
2026 WL 100587, at *8 (“[T]the weight of authority in this District is clear: it is the
Government’s burden to ‘justify[ ] a noncitizen's continued detention at a bond
hearing.’” (quoting Arauz v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03260-CNS, 2025 WL 3041840,
at *4 n.3 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2025)); Espinoza Ruiz v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03642-
CNS, 2025 WL 3294762, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov. 26, 2025) (ordering that the
Government would carry the burden for bond hearing under § 1226(a)); Loa
Caballero v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03120-NYW, 2025 WL 2977650, at *9 (D. Colo.
Oct. 22, 2025) (“During such [bond] hearing, the Respondents bear the burden of
justifying detention.”). If Respondents to not do not provide Petitioner with a
bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) as required herein, Petitioner must
be immediately released from detention;
2) Respondents are ENJOINED from denying bond to Petitioner on the basis that
he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); and
3) Respondents shall file a status report within three days of Petitioner’s bond
hearing, stating whether he has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond
was denied, the reasons for that denial.
Dated: March 25, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
N. Reid Neureiter
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-03969-NRN Document 16 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 6