Garcia Cortes v. Guadian et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00294-CNS
JAVIER ANDRES GARCIA CORTES,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT GUADIAN, Field Office Director, Denver Field Office, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
JUAN BALTAZAR, Warden of Denver Contract Detention Facility,
KRISTI NOEM, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Respondents.
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. See, e.g., ECF No. 1. As Petitioner’s challenge is fundamentally legal in
nature, no hearing is required. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. After reviewing the parties’ briefs,
the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s habeas petition.
Few facts are necessary to appreciate why Petitioner filed his petition. On
September 16, 2025, the Court ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond
hearing before an immigration judge. See Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 1:25–cv–02677–
CNS, 2025 WL 2652880, at *5 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025). He got it. The immigration judge
released Petitioner from custody under a $15,000 bond, determining that he was not a
danger to the community, ECF No. 1-1 at 1–2, and “[did] not pose a flight risk,” id. at 4.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00294-CNS Document 13 filed 02/02/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 5

2
The immigration judge imposed no additional conditions on Petitioner’s release—only
bond—which Respondents acknowledge. See generally ECF No. 1-1; ECF No. 11 at 2.
Petitioner was released on bond on September 23, 2025. See, e.g. ECF No. 11-1 at 2.
On September 24, 2025—one day later—Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) “enrolled” Petitioner in its “Alternatives to Detention” program. Id. This enrollment
required Petitioner to “submit to GPS monitoring”—i.e., wear a monitoring device, as well
as submit to periodic “check-ins” through, for instance, a mobile app. Id. According to ICE,
Petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, so ICE arrested Petitioner on January
21, 2026. Id. at 3. Petitioner filed his habeas petition on January 24, 2026. See ECF No.
1.
I. 	ANALYSIS
Petitioner argues that his immediate release is necessary because Respondents’
placement of “additional conditions” on his release—the monitoring and the check-ins—
violate his constitutional due process rights. ECF No. 1 at 15; see also id. at 24.
Respondents distill their challenges to this argument to two primary points: that Petitioner
hasn’t properly exhausted his administrative remedies, and he can’t succeed on the
merits of his claims. See ECF No. 11 at 11. Nonsense.
First, as to Respondents’ exhaustion argument, they’ve made it before. Take this
language from Respondents’ brief in this case: “Petitioner can challenge the conditions
of release by requesting that the IJ review those conditions, see 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1),
or by asking the ICE district director to change those conditions, see 8 C.F.R. §
1236.1(d)(2). Either decision could then be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00294-CNS Document 13 filed 02/02/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 5

3
See 8 C.F.R. § 1336.1(d)(3)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(f).” ECF No. 11 at 5. Turn now to
Respondents’ “Response to a Motion to Enforce” in a separate case in this judicial district,
where the petitioner sought removal of an ankle monitoring device and other conditions
of release not imposed by an immigration judge: “Petitioner can challenge the conditions
of release by requesting that the IJ review those conditions, see 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1),
or by asking the ICE district director to change those conditions, see 8 C.F.R. §
1236.1(d)(2). Either decision could then be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1336.1(d)(3)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(f).” Batz Barreno v. Baltasar, No. 25–
cv–03017–GPG–TPO, ECF No. 22 at 7.
Try spotting the differences.
Batz Barreno rejected Respondents’ exhaustion argument, instead reaching the
merits of its habeas petition’s virtually identical challenge. --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL
120253, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 15, 2026) (“Petitioner then filed her Motion seeking that the
Court order Respondents to remove the GPS ankle monitor device and any other intrusive
conditions 	of 	release 	that 	were 	not 	ordered 	by 	the 	Immigration 	Judge.” 	(citation
modified)). The Court likewise rejects Respondents’ exhaustion argument, agreeing with
Batz Barreno and Petitioner that Petitioner was under no exhaustion obligation that would
otherwise bar the Court from considering the merits of his habeas petition. See ECF No.
12 at 13–14; Batz Barreno, 2026 WL 120253, at *2.
Second, as to Respondents’ challenge to the merits of Petitioners’ arguments,
those fail. Imposing after-the-fact release conditions, such as GPS wearables and check-
ins, that the immigration judge did not herself impose, see generally ECF No. 1-1
Case No. 1:26-cv-00294-CNS Document 13 filed 02/02/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 5

4
constitutes custody for habeas purposes. See Batz Barreno, 2026 WL 120253, at *2
(collecting cases); C.C.S, et al. v. Wamsley, et al., No. 6:25–cv–02014–AA, 2026 WL
178306, at *8 (D. Or. Jan. 22, 2026) (same). At bottom, “Respondents may not impose
additional conditions after an IJ has ordered release on a bond and set conditions of
release, as here.” Orellana Juarez v. Moniz, 788 F. Supp. 3d 61, 69 (D. Mass. 2025)
* * *
In 	rejecting 	Respondents’ 	bases 	for 	Petitioner’s 	continued 	detention—and
challenges to Petitioner’s constitutional challenges—the Court repeats what many district
courts have already said.* Just as the Court has already repeated itself in continually
rejecting Respondents’ undaunted efforts to improperly detain other habeas petitioners
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225’s mandatory detention provisions. See, e.g. Espinoza Ruiz v.
Baltazar, No. 1:25–cv–03642–CNS, 2025 WL 3294762, at *1 (D. Colo. Nov. 26, 2025)
(collecting cases). And other federal courts across the nation are busy adjudicating similar
habeas petitions, considering and rejecting similar arguments. See id.
While Respondents get to repeat themselves, they don’t get to repeatedly violate
Petitioner’s due process rights. Because Petitioner remains in custody in violation of the
United States Constitution, see, e.g. Batz Barreno, 2026 WL 120253, at *3, the Court
orders his release from custody. Accordingly, the Court need not consider Petitioner’s
statutory claim. See ECF No. 1 at 20.
* Indeed, absent any intervening change in law or material—and the Court means material—change in fact,
the Court will require no argument in the future as to whether the after-the-fact imposition of conditions that
exceed or contradict an immigration judge’s bond order amount to a petitioner’s due process violations.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00294-CNS Document 13 filed 02/02/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 5

5
II. 	CONCLUSION
Consistent with the above analysis, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED. Petitioner is ORDERED released
from custody. Respondents SHALL NOT subject Petitioner to conditions of release that
are inconsistent with the exact terms as set by the Immigration Judge after the bond
hearing, including the imposition of any and all GPS monitoring technology or devices.
See ECF No. 1-1. Any such monitoring technology or devices SHALL BE REMOVED
from 	Petitioner 	immediately. 	Respondents 	SHALL FILE a status update 	certifying
compliance with this Order within 24 hours.
DATED this 2nd day of February 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-00294-CNS Document 13 filed 02/02/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 5