Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
NOZIMJON ACHILOV,
Petitioner,
v. 	2:26-cv-00559-DHU-SCY
FNU LNU, Warden of Torrance County
Detention Facility; MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA,
ICE Director of El Paso Field Office; TODD
LYONS, Acting ICE Director; and KRISTI
NOEM, DHS Secretary,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Nozimjon Achilov’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). Doc. 1. Petitioner is currently in immigration detention and alleges
that he was unlawfully detained without the opportunity for a bond hearing, in violation of his due
process rights. Doc 1. at 11-16. Petitioner asks the Court to declare his detention unlawful and to
grant a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to immediately release him or, alternatively,
provide him with a bond hearing. Id. at ¶ 7. For the reasons below, the Petition is GRANTED.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Uzbekistan who entered the U.S. on June 7, 2023 and was released
on his own recognizance on the same day. Id. at ¶ 17; Doc. 1-2 at 1; Doc. 1-4 at 1. To his counsel’s
knowledge, Petitioner has no criminal history, which Respondents do not dispute. Doc. 1 at ¶ 19.
On or about December 16, 2025, a trooper stopped Petitioner on Interstate 40 in Beckham
County, Oklahoma, during what appeared to be a commercial vehicle/inspection stop while
Petitioner was working as a truck driver. Id. at ¶ 20. After a period of roadside questioning and
delay, an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Driver/Vehicle Examination Report reflected that the stop
Case 1:26-cv-00559-DHU-SCY Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 5

2
involved a Level II inspection and stated, “No violations were discovered.” Id. Despite the
inspection report reflecting no violations, the trooper told Petitioner that he would be taken to ICE
to “check his status,” placed him in handcuffs, and transported him approximately 50–60 miles to
meet an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer. Id. at ¶ 21.
Since December 16, 2025, Petitioner has been in ICE’s custody at the Torrance County
Detention Facility in New Mexico. Id. at ¶ 23. He has a pending asylum case (Form I-589) and
remains in removal proceedings while detained. Id. at ¶ 24. On February 2, 2026, an Immigration
Judge denied Petitioner’s request for release on bond, citing lack of jurisdiction as the basis. Id. at
¶ 25.
On February 25, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, asking this Court to:
(1) Grant the Petition and declare that Petitioner’s continued detention violates the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause;
(2) Order Petitioner’s immediate release from ICE custody forthwith, under appropriate
conditions if the Court deems conditions necessary to reasonably ensure appearance
and protect the public;
(3) Order expedited consideration of this Petition and set an accelerated schedule for
Respondents’ response as appropriate; and
(4) Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Id. at 21-22.
On March 9, 2026, Respondents responded to the Petition, acknowledging that “this Court
and others have previously ruled that the detention of aliens who have been in the United States
for extended periods is not governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225 but is instead controlled by 8 U.S.C. §
1226, which affords aliens the opportunity for release during immigration proceedings.” Doc. 8 at
Case 1:26-cv-00559-DHU-SCY Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 5

3
11 (citing Requejo Roman v. Castro, CIV. A. No. 25-1076, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15709 (D.N.M.
Jan. 12, 2026)). Respondents further acknowledge that “if the Court adheres to [Requejo Roman],
then Petitioner—who had been continuously present in the United States for almost three years
when he was re-arrested—would be entitled to a detention hearing.” Id. Respondents 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 argue
that Petitioner is an applicant for admission seeking admission subject to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Id. at 6.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
Habeas relief is available when a person “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner seeks habeas relief,
arguing he is being unlawfully detained in violation of the INA and his Fifth Amendment due
process rights.
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the government from depriving any
person of liberty without due process of law. “Freedom from imprisonment—from government
custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause
protects.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001). The Due Process Clause’s protections
extend to all persons in the United States, including noncitizens, “whether their presence here is
lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Id. at 693.
III. 	DISCUSSION
The facts of this case are materially indistinguishable from prior cases this Court has
decided—such as Requejo Roman and Velasquez Salazar v. Dedos et al., –––F.Supp.3d––––, 2025
WL 2676729 (D.N.M. 2025)—involving habeas petitioners who were detained within the United
Case 1:26-cv-00559-DHU-SCY Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 5

4
States rather than at a border crossing or port of entry. “Following its decisions in Requejo
Roman and Salazar, as well as the decisions of virtually all other federal courts who have analyzed
this issue, the Court holds that noncitizens already present in the United States who entered without
inspection are subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and are entitled to a bond
hearing.” Uribe v. Noem, CIV. A. No. 25-1139, 2026 WL 127621, at *3 (D.N.M. Jan. 16, 2026)
(footnote omitted).
The Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner's detention and that the
Government’s misclassification of Petitioner under § 1225 and resultant denial of a bond hearing
deprived him of his right to due process. The Court further finds that Respondents failed to
articulate a legitimate interest in Petitioner's continued detention and therefore orders his
immediate release. See Doc. 8. To ensure Petitioner's due process rights are protected going
forward, the factors laid out in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), favor shifting the burden
of proof to the Government in any future bond hearing.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner's habeas petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents release Petitioner within twenty-four
(24) hours of this Order and that the parties submit a joint status report to the Court no later than
Monday, March 30, 2026, confirming Petitioner’s timely release. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that Respondents are RESTRAINED from re-detaining Petitioner unless they demonstrate, by
clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation hearing, that Petitioner is a danger to his
community or a flight risk.
Case 1:26-cv-00559-DHU-SCY Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Petitioner may submit an application for attorney’s fees within thirty (30) days of this Order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Respondents may respond to Petitioner’s application for fees no
later than fourteen (14) days after Petitioner’s application is filed with this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HONORABLE DAVID HERRERA URIAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00559-DHU-SCY Document 11 Filed 03/26/26 Page 5 of 5