Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Juan Gabriel Yupa Palchizaca,
Petitioner
v. 	Case No. 26-cv-418-SM-AJ
Opinion No. 2026 DNH 069
Superintendent, Strafford
County Dept. of Corrections, et al.,
Respondents
O R D E R
Juan Palchizaca petitions the court for an order directing
the federal respondents to provide him with a prompt,
constitutionally adequate bond hearing before a neutral
decisionmaker. 	See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	On May 26,
2026, the respondents were directed to show cause why the court
should not issue an order granting Palchizaca’s petition based
upon his apparent membership in the class certified in Guerrero
Orellana v. Moniz, 813 F. Supp. 3d 185 (D. Mass. 2025), and/or
his similarity to the petitioner in Destino v. FCI Berlin,
Warden, No. 25-cv-374-SE-AJ, 2025 WL 4010424 (D.N.H. Dec. 24,
2025).
The federal respondents filed their response to the order
to show cause on June 2, 2026, in which they maintain that
Case 1:26-cv-00418-SM-AJ Document 6 Filed 06/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Destino and Guerrero Orellana were wrongly decided, assert that
Palchizaca is an “applicant for admission” subject to mandatory
detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and object to the court
granting the relief he seeks. 	See Response to Order to Show
Cause (document no. 5). 	Nevertheless, they acknowledge that
Palchizaca is similarly situated to the petitioner in Destino.
They also concede that if the court were to apply Destino’s
reasoning to the facts presented in this case, it would reach
the same result, given Palchizaca’s lengthy residence in the
United States.
Conclusion
The respondents have failed to show cause why the court
should not order them to afford Palchizaca a bond hearing before
an immigration judge (IJ). 	Because the court concludes that the
reasoning in Destino applies in this case, the Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (document no. 1) is granted, in part. 	The
respondents are ordered to provide Palchizaca with a
constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an IJ as soon as
practicable, at which the government will bear the burden to
either: (1) prove by a preponderance that he is a flight risk;
or (2) prove by clear and convincing evidence that he poses a
danger to the community. 	See Destino, 2025 WL 4010424 at *8.
Case 1:26-cv-00418-SM-AJ Document 6 Filed 06/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
See also Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir.
2021).
If the government fails to provide a bond hearing, the
court will set appropriate terms and conditions of the
petitioner’s release during the pendency of his removal
proceedings.
To the extent, if any, that Palchizaca seeks an order
directing his immediate release, that request is denied without
prejudice. 	The court finds that a bond hearing before an IJ is
sufficient to protect his rights at this stage.
The government shall file a status report within fourteen
days.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
June 2, 2026
cc: 	Counsel of Record
Case 1:26-cv-00418-SM-AJ Document 6 Filed 06/02/26 Page 3 of 3