Gabriel-Morales v. Bondi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 26-cv-00392-PAB
LUIS GABRIEL-MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as U.S. Attorney General,
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW,
FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Denver CO Sub-Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and
ASSISTANT FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, Denver CO Sub-Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Luis Gabriel-Morales’s Verified
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
[Docket No. 1]. Respondents filed a response. Docket No. 10. 1
I. BACKGROUND 2
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. Docket No. 1 at 8, ¶ 33. Petitioner
initially entered the United States without inspection in 2023. Id., ¶ 34. He entered the
1 Respondents dispute that the named non-individual respondents – the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office for Immigration Review –
are not properly named in a habeas petition. Docket No. 10 at 1 n.1. The Court agrees
and will grant the habeas petition as brought against the individual respondents.
2 The following facts are taken from the petition. Docket No. 1. Respondents
have not disputed any facts and do not provide any facts of their own. See generally
Docket No. 10.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00392-PAB Document 12 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 5

2
United States on or around October 30, 2023 and approached U.S. Border Patrol
shortly after entry. Id. at 2, ¶ 2. Immigration officials released petitioner on his own
recognizance on November 1, 2023. Id., ¶ 3. Petitioner has been re-detained by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) since December 9, 2025 without a bond
hearing. Id., ¶ 4. Petitioner is currently in removal proceedings. Id., ¶ 5. The
Department of Homeland Security has not provided petitioner a bond hearing or parole
redetermination. Id., ¶ 6.
On February 1, 2026, petitioner filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. See generally id.
Petitioner brings claims that respondents are detaining petitioner in violation of his Fifth
Amendment Due Process Rights (Count I), that respondents are detaining petitioner in
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.§ 706(2) (Count II), and that
respondents jail petitioner in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (Count III). Id. at 14-16, ¶¶
58-71.
Petitioner asks the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus declaring that the
statutory basis for his detention is 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and requiring respondents to
provide him with a bond hearing conducted either by the Court or by an immigration
judge. Id. at 16-17. Petitioner also asks the Court to award attorneys’ fees and to
enjoin his transfer outside the jurisdiction of the District of Colorado. Id. at 17.
II. ANALYSIS
The parties disagree on whether petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226 or 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Id. at 8-14; Docket No. 10 at 1-4. Petitioner contends that
his detention should be controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because § 1226(a) applies to
the detention of “people who face charges of being inadmissible to the United States,
Case No. 1:26-cv-00392-PAB Document 12 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 5

3
including those who are present without admission or parole.” Docket No. 1 at 13, ¶ 55.
Because he believes that § 1226 applies, petitioner argues that respondents must
provide him with a bond hearing. See id. at 3, ¶ 12. Respondents, however, contend
that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens like petitioner who are “present in
the United States without being admitted or paroled.” Docket No. 10 at 2. Respondents
claim that petitioner is therefore not entitled to a bond hearing and is subject to
mandatory detention. Id.
On six occasions, this Court has analyzed whether § 1225 or § 1226 applies to
petitioners who were detained when already present in the United States without
inspection and who face removal proceedings. See Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-03993-PAB, 2026 WL 290989, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Armenta v. Noem,
No. 26-cv-00236-PAB, 2026 WL 274634, at *1-5 (D. Colo. Feb. 3, 2026); Portillo
Martinez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00106-PAB, 2026 WL 194163, at *2-5 (D. Colo. Jan. 26,
2026); Garcia-Perez v. Guadian, No. 25-cv-04069-PAB, 2026 WL 89613, at *2-4 (D.
Colo. Jan. 13, 2026); Alfaro Orellana v. Noem, No. 25-cv-03976-PAB, 2025 WL
3706417, at *2-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 22, 2025); Florez Marin v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03697-
PAB, 2025 WL 3677019, at *1-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 2025). The Court has ruled that the
petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226. Id.
Respondents acknowledge that the Court has previously analyzed this issue,
conceding “the facts of this case are not materially distinguishable . . . for purposes of
the Court’s decision on the legal issue of whether Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” Docket No. 10 at 3. Respondents state that
they submit an abbreviated response “to conserve judicial and party resources and
Case No. 1:26-cv-00392-PAB Document 12 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 5

4
expedite this Court’s consideration of this case, while preserving legal arguments and
reserving all of Respondent’s rights including the right to appeal.” Id. at 2.
Respondents note that a decision in this district rejecting respondents’ position has
been appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Id. at 3 (citing Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, No.
25-cv-02720-RMR, 2025 WL 2962908 (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2025). “Respondents
acknowledge that until the Tenth Circuit rules on this issue, this Court’s prior ruling on
this issue would lead the Court to reach the same result here if the Court adheres to
that decision, as the facts of this case are not materially distinguishable from that case
for purposes of the Court’s decision on the legal issue of whether Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” Id.. Respondents incorporate by
reference the legal arguments that respondents presented in Mendoza Gutierrez, the
case which was appealed to the Tenth Circuit. 3 Id. at 4.
The Court has analyzed the response that was submitted in Mendoza Gutierrez.
See Mendoza Gutierrez, No. 25-cv-02720-RMR, Docket No. 26 (D. Colo. Sept. 16,
2025). Not finding any additional relevant arguments that the Court has not already
addressed in its past orders on this issue, the Court will grant the habeas petition for the
same reasons as it did in Alfaro Orellana, which respondents acknowledge does not
materially differ from the present case. Docket No. 10 at 2. The Court finds that
petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Because there is no evidence
that petitioner has been provided a bond hearing, his current detention violates
3 Respondents specify that they do not consent to issuance of the writ. Docket
No. 10 at 4.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00392-PAB Document 12 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 5

5
§ 1226(a). The Court will grant the habeas petition on Count Three 4 and will order
respondents to provide petitioner a bond hearing within seven days of the date of this
order. 5
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Docket No. 1] is GRANTED in part. It is further
ORDERED that respondents shall provide petitioner with a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of the date of this Court’s order. It is further
ORDERED that within five days of petitioner’s bond hearing, the parties shall file
a status report indicating whether the bond hearing was held and whether bond was
granted or denied.
DATED February 13, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
4 Because the Court will grant the habeas petition on the basis of Count Three, it
will not reach petitioner’s other claims. See Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03094-
CNS, 2025 WL 2996643, at *8 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2025) (“the Court declines to
adjudicate Petitioner's due process claim on the merits at this time because the Court
grants the relief Petitioner seeks based on the applicability of § 1226(a)”).
5 As for petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees, see Docket No. 1 at 17, the Court
will not consider the request because petitioner fails to comply with the Local Rules of
the District of Colorado. A motion for attorney’s fees must be filed in accordance with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3 (“Unless otherwise ordered, a
motion for attorney fees shall be supported by affidavit. . . . The Motion shall include . . .
for each person for whom fees are claimed: (1) a summary of relevant qualifications and
experience; and (2) a detailed description of the services rendered, the amount of time
spent, the hourly rate charged, and the total amount claimed.”).
___________________	__	_________
Case No. 1:26-cv-00392-PAB Document 12 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 5