Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
DASNIER BAREA LEYVA,
Petitioner,
v.
1:26-cv-00200-MIS-JMR
MELISSA ORTIZ, Acting Warden of
Torrance County Detention Center; MARY
DE ANDA-YBARRA, ICE District Director,
Otero, New Mexico; KRISTI NOEM, in her
capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security;
and PAM BONDI, in her capacity as Attorney
General of the United States,
Respondents.
ORDER VACATING ORDER OF REFERENCE AND GRANTING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Dasnier Barea Leyva’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 2, filed January 30, 2026. The same day, the Clerk’s
Office served Respondents with the Petition, pursuant to this District’s Standing Order Regarding
Service of Process in Immigration Habeas Petitions filed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Case 1:26-
mc-00004, ECF No. 3 (D.N.M. Jan. 28, 2026). ECF No. 4.
Also on January 30, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 5, which
instructs that Respondents “shall respond to the Petition and SHOW CAUSE why the requested
relief should not be granted” within ten business days. Id. at 1.
Also on January 30, 2026, the Court issued an Order referring this case to United States
Magistrate Judge Jennifer M. Rozzoni (“Order of Reference”). ECF No. 6. The Order of
Reference is hereby VACATED.
Case 1:26-cv-00200-MIS-JMR Document 15 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The deadline to respond to the Petition and Order to Show Cause was February 13, 2026.
No Respondent filed a timely response to the Petition or the Order to Show Cause. Thus, on
February 17, 2026, Judge Rozzoni issued an Order to Show Cause for Failure to Respond requiring
Respondents to show cause by February 24, 2026 for their failure to respond to the Petition and
why the Petition should not be summarily granted. ECF No. 13 at 1-2.
On February 17, 2026, the Federal Respondents filed a Response to the Petition. ECF No.
14. Therein, counsel for Respondents acknowledges that the facts of this case are “substantially
similar” to Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 WL 266619 (D.N.M. Feb. 2,
2026), and that “this Court’s decision in Duhan v. Noem, would control the result here if the Court
adheres to that decision, as the facts are not materially distinguishable for purposes of the Court’s
decision on the legal issue of which statutory provision authorizes Petitioner’s detention.” Resp.
at 2. Counsel did not distinguish this case from other cases involving the detention of noncitizens
already present in the United States—as opposed to noncitizens detained at a border crossing or
port of entry—but argued that Petitioner is an applicant for admission seeking admission subject
to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Id. at 1-2.
The Court finds that the facts of this case are materially indistinguishable from prior cases
the Undersigned Judge has decided involving habeas petitioners who were detained within the
United States, rather than at a border crossing or port of entry, and adopts the findings contained
in its Order Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No.
2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026). Briefly, the Court finds that 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, his continued detention without a bond hearing
violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and, as such, he is entitled to habeas relief. The
Court further finds that Respondents failed to articulate a legitimate interest in Petitioner’s
Case 1:26-cv-00200-MIS-JMR Document 15 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 3

3
continued detention and therefore orders his immediate release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 14.
The Court further orders that Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a pre-deprivation bond
hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk.
Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order and to entertain any
motions for attorneys’ fees.
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Order of Reference, ECF No. 6, is VACATED;
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED;
3. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Dasnier Barea
Leyva from custody/detention;
4. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation hearing
before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk;
5. Counsel for Federal Respondents is ORDERED to provide a copy of this order to
Counsel for the Warden of the Torrance County Detention Center forthwith; and
6. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order and to entertain
any motions for attorneys’ fees.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00200-MIS-JMR Document 15 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 3