Vasquez Gomez v. Bondi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 26-cv-00489-NRN
BRUSLY AUBDIAS VASQUEZ GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General
KRISTI NOEM, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security (“DHS”),
TODD LYONS, Acting Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
ROBERT GUADIAN, Acting Denver Field Office Director,
JUAN BALTAZAR Warden of Denver Contract Detention Facility,
IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES,
Respondents.
ORDER
N. REID NEUREITER
United States Magistrate Judge
This case is before the Court on Brusly Audbias Vasquez Gomez’s (“Petitioner”)
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner is a detainee at
the Denver Contract Detention Facility. He contends that the 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 need for a hearing on the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For
the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS 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
Case No. 1:26-cv-00489-NRN Document 11 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 5

2
hearings under a new interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226. E.g., 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 he be released unless
Respondents provide a bond hearing under § 1226(a) within seven days. ECF No. 1 at
3.
Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States on or about
February 6, 2019. Id. ¶ 23. Upon entry, Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear
(“NTA”) that lacked the date and time of his hearing as well as the date of issuance and
was not filed with the immigration court. Id. ¶ 24. In November 2025, Petitioner was
detained after a vehicle he was a passenger in was stopped in Florida; he was not
charged with any crimes, offenses, or infractions. Id. ¶ 27. On December 7, 2025, the
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) filed an NTA with the Executive Office of
Immigration Review (“EOIR”), which commenced removal proceedings against
Petitioner. Id. ¶ 25 On January 13, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion for custody
redetermination providing evidence of his good moral character demonstrating that he is
Case No. 1:26-cv-00489-NRN Document 11 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 5

3
neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk.1 Id. ¶ 26. He has been detained
since his arrest.
Petitioner argues that he would qualify for release on bond under 8 U.S.C. §
1226, and Respondents do not offer any evidence of a criminal history that requires
mandatory detention. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Instead, Respondents contend that
Petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1225(b)(2)(A), which applies to noncitizens who
are deemed to be “applicants for admission” because they entered the country without
inspection and have never been admitted, and requires detention of any “applicant for
admission” if an “examining immigration officer determines that [the] alien seeking
admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” See ECF No. 8 at
1–2. Respondents’ argument has been raised and rejected by several other judges in
this District. See Jimenez Facio, 2025 WL 3559128, at 2 (recognizing that “every
decision in this District 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 several years). This Court will do the same.
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
1 The Petition represents the filing date as January 13, 2025, which the Court
assumes is a clerical error.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00489-NRN Document 11 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 5

4
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. The Court finds that
Petitioner has met his burden.
While Respondents recognize that numerous courts have rejected their position,
they note that the Fifth Circuit recently held otherwise. See ECF No. 8 at 2 (citing
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, Nos. 25-20496 & 25- 40701, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL
323330, at *1 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026)). Obviously, the Fifth Circuit’s decision is not
binding authority on this Court, and, as to persuasiveness, the Court respectfully finds in
Judge Douglas’s dissent a more rigorous and compelling legal analysis of the relevant
statutory provisions. See also Singh v. Baltazar, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 352870,
at *3–6 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2026) (explaining in detail why Buenrostro-Mendez does not
compel a contrary outcome).
The Court is “firmly convinced that it and the other judges in the District who have
addressed this issue have correctly decided those cases.” Diaz Marquez, 2026 WL
370864, at *1. 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 substantially similar factual
Case No. 1:26-cv-00489-NRN Document 11 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 5

5
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)).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition, ECF No. 1, is
GRANTED.
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;
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 five 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: February 20, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
N. Reid Neureiter
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-00489-NRN Document 11 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 5