Corona Arciniega v. Bondi et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. 26-cv-00598-CYC
RODOLFO CORONA ARCINIEGA,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, in her official capacity;
ROBERT GUADIAN, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Field Office Director for the
Colorado Field Office, in his official capacity;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; and
JUAN BALTASAR, Warden of GEO Group Aurora Inc, in his official capacity,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Rodolfo Corona Arciniega, a detainee at the GEO Contract Detention
Facility in Aurora, Colorado, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the
respondents, who control that facility, are improperly subjecting him to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 1 (the “Petition”). Instead, he says, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
governs his detention vel non. 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 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 under a new interpretation of 8
U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226. E.g., Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-PAB, 2026 WL
290989 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Jimenez Facio v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03592-CYC, 2025
Case No. 1:26-cv-00598-CYC Document 12 filed 03/03/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
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). The petitioner seeks release or, in
the alternative, a bond hearing, and legal fees and costs. ECF No. 1 at 11–12.
The petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, has lived in the United States for several years. Id. at
2, 6, 8–9. He entered the United States in 2004. Id. at 2, 6, 8–9. He “was briefly apprehended
near the border,” but “was not placed into expedited removal proceedings, was not ordered
removed, and was released into the United States.” Id. at 6, 8. As a result, he had been present in
the United States for years before he was encountered by employees of the Department of
Homeland Security on November 28, 2025. Id. at 8, 10–11. The petitioner argues that he is
entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and that he has no criminal record, and the
respondents do not offer any evidence of a criminal history that requires mandatory detention.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Instead, they maintain that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
ECF No. 11 at 8–10.
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, the 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.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00598-CYC Document 12 filed 03/03/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
§ 1226(a) (providing for discretionary detention); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (providing
framework for requesting a bond determination), and that his continued detention premised on 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates his due process rights and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
ECF No. 1 at 6–8, 10–11. The Court has previously resolved this legal question in favor of a
similarly situated petitioner. Jimenez Facio, 2025 WL 3559128, at *1–4. The respondents
recognize this, but “respectfully disagree with that ruling.” ECF No. 11 at 7. The Court remains
firmly convinced that it and the other judges in the District who have addressed this issue have
correctly decided those cases and incorporates its analysis from Jimenez Facio. 2025 WL
3559128, at *1–4. To the extent the petitioners contend that the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F. 4th ----, 2026 WL 323330, at *5–10 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026),
makes a difference, see ECF No. 11 at 8–9, Judge Sweeney’s thorough rebuttal of that divided
decision provides a solid foundation to maintain the consensus that exists in this District. See
Singh v. Baltazar, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 352870, at *3–6 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2026).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and his
continued detention without a bond hearing is therefore a violation of due process.
The respondents also address the petitioner’s alternative argument that he is a member of
the class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-01873-SSS-BFM (C.D. Cal.), ECF No.
11 at 2–7, but because the Court finds that the Petition should be granted because the petitioner is
detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and is therefore entitled to a bond hearing, it need not
address this alternative argument. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24,
25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”); Ardon-Leon v. Bondi, No. 25-9539,
2026 WL 125758, at *3 (10th Cir. 2026) (declining to address alternative arguments made by
petitioner).
Case No. 1:26-cv-00598-CYC Document 12 filed 03/03/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
There is a final matter. The petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 1 at 12.
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. 1, is
GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part.
It is further ORDERED that
(1) the respondents shall provide the petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within seven days of this Order;
(2) the respondents are ENJOINED from denying bond to the petitioner on the basis that
he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); and
(3) the respondents shall file a status report within seven days of the petitioner’s bond
hearing, stating whether he has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was
denied, the reasons for that denial.
Entered and dated this 3rd day of March, 2026, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-00598-CYC Document 12 filed 03/03/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4