Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JUNJIE NI,
Petitioner,
v. 	2:26-cv-00679-DHU-LF
MARISSA FLORES, ICE Director of New
Mexico Field Office; KRISTI NOEM, DHS
Secretary; PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney
General; DAREN MARGOLIN, EOIR
Director; and DORA CASTRO, Warden
of Otero County Processing Center,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Junjie Ni’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (“Petition”). Doc. 1. For the reasons below, the Petition is GRANTED.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a citizen of China, entered the United States without inspection on or about
January 25, 2024, and was detained by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents for two days.
Doc. 1 at ¶ 15. On January 27, 2025, Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear, placed in
removal proceedings, and released on his own recognizance due to humanitarian reasons. Id. at ¶
16. Following Petitioner’s release, he moved to and lived in Brooklyn, New York, until he was
detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at a routine check-in on December 1,
2025. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 19. Petitioner is currently detained at the Otero County Processing Center in
Chaparral, New Mexico. Id. at ¶ 1.
On March 6, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, asking this Court to:
(1) Assume jurisdiction over this matter;
Case 2:26-cv-00679-DHU-LF Document 11 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 4

2
(2) Issue a writ of habeas corpus requiring that Respondents release Petitioner or provide
him with a bond hearing within fourteen (14) days;
(3) Award Petitioner his attorneys’ fees and costs; and
(4) Grant any other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Id. at 14.
On March 20, 2026, Respondents responded to the Petition, asserting that the facts of this
case are “substantially similar” to Requejo Roman v. Castro, CIV. A. No. 25-1076, 2026 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 15709 (D.N.M. Jan. 12, 2026), and that “this Court’s decision in R[e]quejo Roman v.
Castro, 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.” Doc. 9 at 2-3. 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 2.
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
Case 2:26-cv-00679-DHU-LF Document 11 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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
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. 9. 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. For a detailed account of the Court's
reasoning relevant to this decision, see Requejo Roman.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner's habeas petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.
Case 2:26-cv-00679-DHU-LF Document 11 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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
April 2, 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.
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 2:26-cv-00679-DHU-LF Document 11 Filed 03/31/26 Page 4 of 4