Solis-Gutierrez v. Mullin et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 26-cv-01287-NRN
ISMAEL SOLIS-GUTIERREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security,
TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
GEORGE VALDEZ, in his official capacity as ICE Field Officer Director,
JUAN BALTAZAR, in his official capacity as the warden of the Aurora Immigration
Detention Facility,
Defendants.
ORDER
N. REID NEUREITER
United States Magistrate Judge
This case is before the Court on Ismael Solis-Gutierrez’s (“Petitioner”) Verified
Petition for Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner is a detainee at the
Denver Contract Detention Facility in Aurora, Colorado. ECF No. 1 at 2. 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 IN
PART the Petition.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01287-NRN Document 10 filed 04/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 7

2
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 is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States without inspection
or parole in April 2011. ECF No. 1 at 6. He does not appear to have any significant
criminal history, aside from a non-violent misdemeanor offense resulting in probation.
Id. He was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and served with
a Warrant for Arrest of Alien on January 12, 2026, and was taken into custody on that
same date. Id. at 7. Petitioner is seeking protection from removal under Convention
Against Torture. Id. He was denied a bond redetermination hearing because
Immigration Judge concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction based on the agency’s
Case No. 1:26-cv-01287-NRN Document 10 filed 04/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 7

3
position that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and is therefore not eligible
for bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id.
Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 16–13. Petitioner
asks that he either be released from custody or granted a prompt bond hearing. Id. at
13.
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
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). Indeed,
Respondents concede
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).
ECF No. 8 at 3.
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
Case No. 1:26-cv-01287-NRN Document 10 filed 04/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 7

4
U.S. 275, 286 (1941). To meet that burden, Petitioner argues, in part, 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
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
Case No. 1:26-cv-01287-NRN Document 10 filed 04/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 7

5
detention pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the INA, and that he is instead properly
considered to be detained under § 1226(a).”).
Moreover, the Court rejects Respondents’ reliance on the Fifth Circuit’s decision
in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). As this Court has
repeatedly held, the Fifth Circuit’s decision is not binding authority in this District, 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 Vasquez
Gomez, 2026 WL 482677, at *2; 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).
Respondents also reference the Eighth Circuit's recent decision in Avila v. Bondi.
--- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026), and decisions of “some district
courts in this circuit have agreed with [their] interpretation of the statute.” ECF No. 9 at
3. But “they present no argument for why these non-binding decisions require the Court
to reverse itself on this legal question.” Gregorio Martinez Torres v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-
01062-CYC, 2026 WL 860425, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2026). Rather, Respondents
concede 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 . . . .” ECF No. 9 at 3. Having reviewed the cited decisions, the Court finds no
reason to reverse itself.
Lastly, Petitioner requests attorney fees and costs. ECF No. 1 at 14. 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
Case No. 1:26-cv-01287-NRN Document 10 filed 04/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 7

6
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 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
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, 2025 WL 2977650, at *9 (“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;
Case No. 1:26-cv-01287-NRN Document 10 filed 04/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 7

7
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: April 6, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
N. Reid Neureiter
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-01287-NRN Document 10 filed 04/06/26 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 7