Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
NATALIA CHIC ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v. 2:25-cv-01307-KG-GJF
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Natalia Chic Ortiz’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 9. Following a hearing, the Court issued
a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) directing the Government to release Ms. Chic Ortiz.
See Doc. 4. The Court acknowledges that Ms. Chic Ortiz has not filed a reply—she may submit
any objections to this Order. For the reasons below, the Court grants her petition.
I. Background
Ms. Chic Ortiz, a 36-year-old Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States without
inspection in 2010. Id. at 2, 4. She lives in Oklahoma and has no criminal history. Id. at 5. She
is married and has three children, including two minor children who are United States citizens
and depend on her for daily care. Id. She has maintained lawful employment and owns a home
in Oklahoma. Id.
On or about November 27, Ms. Chic Ortiz was detained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) officers after she fully complied with an identification inquiry conducted
by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. Id. at 4. The Department of Public Safety had
previously notified Ms. Chic Ortiz, in writing, that additional documentation was needed to
complete her state identification card application. Id. Ms. Chic Ortiz promptly appeared and
Case 2:25-cv-01307-KG-GJF Document 10 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 4

2
cooperated with the authorities and was permitted to leave. Id. Shortly thereafter, ICE officers
stopped Ms. Chic Ortiz while she was driving with her niece and arrested her without presenting
a warrant or explaining the legal basis for the detention. Id. Ms. Chic Ortiz is being detained at
the Otero County Processing Center in New Mexico. Id. at 1.
Ms. Chic Ortiz claims her detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that she is
therefore entitled to an individualized bond hearing. Doc. 4 at 5. The Government claims that
Ms. Chic Ortiz “is properly classified under § 1225” and therefore “there has been no violation
of the” Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).
II. Standard of Review
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks “release from unlawful physical
confinement.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). Habeas corpus review is
available if a noncitizen is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 687.
III. Analysis
For the reasons below, the Court finds that (A) § 1226 governs Ms. Chic Ortiz’s
detention, and (B) the proper remedy is a bond hearing where the Government bears the burden
of proof.
A. Section 1226 governs Ms. Chic Ortiz’s detention.
The INA establishes distinct detention regimes depending on whether a noncitizen is
“seeking admission” to the United States. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288–89
(2018). Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to “applicant[s] for admission” who are “seeking
admission” and “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” The “provision
mandates detention and affords no bond hearing.” Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL
3187432, at *1 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.). By contrast, § 1226(a) authorizes the arrest and
Case 2:25-cv-01307-KG-GJF Document 10 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 4

3
detention, “on a warrant issued by the Attorney General,” of noncitizens “pending a decision on
whether [they are] to be removed.” Noncitizens “detained under this second detention regime
are entitled to individualized bond hearings at the outset of detention.” Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL
3187432, at *1.
Consistent with the overwhelming majority of district courts to consider the issue and this
Court’s prior findings, the Court finds that § 1226 governs here. See Barco Mercado v. Francis,
2025 WL 3295903, at *13 (S.D.N.Y.) (collecting 362 district-court opinions nationwide and
noting that challengers prevailed in at least 350 of them, in decisions by over 160 judges across
fifty courts); see also Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432 (Gonzales, J.); Danierov v. Noem, 2026 WL
45288, at *2 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.); Patel v. Noem, 2026 WL 103163, at *2 (D.N.M.)
(Gonzales, J.). Section 1225(a)(1) defines an “applicant for admission” as a noncitizen “who has
not been admitted or who arrives in the United States” (emphasis added). In contrast,
§ 1225(b)(2)(A)’s detention mandate applies only to noncitizens “seeking admission” (emphasis
added). Noncitizens “seeking admission” are those who have not “effected an entry” into the
United States. DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020). Noncitizens “who entered the
country years earlier” are not “seeking admission,” and therefore fall under § 1226 rather than
§ 1225(b)(2)(A). Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3.
Under this framework, § 1226 governs Ms. Chic Ortiz’s detention. ICE arrested her 16
years after her initial entry into the United States and did not apprehend her at or near the border.
Doc. 1 at 4–5. Accordingly, § 1225’s mandatory detention provision “does not apply” because
she effected an entry into the United States by living here for over a decade. Pu Sacvin, 2025
WL 3187432, at *3.
Case 2:25-cv-01307-KG-GJF Document 10 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 4

4
B. The remedy is a bond hearing where the Government bears the burden of proof.
The proper habeas remedy is a prompt bond hearing at which the Government must
prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Chic Ortiz is a flight risk or danger to the
community. Although “under normal circumstances, the burden” at a § 1226 hearing “is on the
noncitizen” to show that detention is unwarranted, Ms. Chic Ortiz’s “unlawful detention...shifts
that burden to the Government.” Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3. A noncitizen’s “strong
private interest in being free from civil detention” outweighs the Government’s “comparatively
minimal burden to justify custody.” Id.
IV. Conclusion
The Court therefore grants Ms. Chic Ortiz’s petition, Doc. 1. Because the Court has
resolved the petition on statutory grounds, it need not address Ms. Chic Ortiz’s class action
claim. The Court orders that the Government provide her with a bond hearing under § 1226(a)
before an Immigration Judge within seven days of this Order. At that hearing, the Government
must justify her continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. If the Government fails
to provide a bond hearing within that timeframe, it must release her. The Court further orders
the Government to file a status report within ten days of this Order confirming that it has either
provided Ms. Chic Ortiz with a bond hearing or released her.
IT IS SO ORDERED
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
Case 2:25-cv-01307-KG-GJF Document 10 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 4