Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOSE MANUEL GUALLPA LLIGUICOTA,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00684-SMD-KRS
MARKWAYNE MULLIN,1 et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and the Expedited Motion for Constitutional Bond Hearing (Doc.
9). The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions, the record, and the relevant law, and for the
reasons set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Jose Manuel Guallpa Lliguicota, a citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States
without inspection in 2005 and has continuously resided here for more than 20 years. Doc. 1 ¶ 1.
On November 7, 2025, the New York Fugitive Operations Team conducted targeted enforcement
operations in Flushing, New York. Id. ¶ 4. Petitioner alleges that the officers detained him under
the mistaken belief that he was the intended target, though it was later determined that Petitioner
was not the subject of the original enforcement action. Id. ¶ 6. Petitioner alleges he has no prior
immigration court history or arrests, and no outstanding removal order exists against him. Id. ¶¶ 4;
97. Although Petitioner’s employer provided an affidavit, the record does not clarify whether
Petitioner has a valid Employment Authorization Document issued by DHS. Doc. 9, Ex. 2 at 18.
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the case caption shall be updated to reflect that Markwayne Mullin
is the Secretary of Homeland Security. All future filings should be in the name of the substituted party.
Case 2:26-cv-00684-SMD-KRS Document 12 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Following his arrest, Petitioner was transferred among multiple detention facilities,
ultimately being detained at the Otero County Processing Center. Doc. 1 ¶ 16. An immigration
judge denied bond for lack of jurisdictional but clarified that a bond of $5,000 would otherwise be
appropriate because Petitioner is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the public. Id. ¶ 18; see also
Doc. 10-2 at 1.
Petitioner challenges his ongoing detention as a violation of the First and the Fifth
Amendments. Id. ¶ 67–95. He seeks immediate release or, alternatively, a constitutionally
adequate bond hearing before a neutral decision maker. Id. ¶ 99.
DISCUSSION
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider habeas challenges to
immigration detention. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). A district court may grant
a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
I. Statutory Framework: 8 U.S.C §§ 1225 and 1226
Sections 1225 and 1226 govern the detention of noncitizens prior to a final order of
removal. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 287–89 (2018). Section 1225(b) “applies
primarily to [noncitizens] seeking entry into the United States”—i.e., “applicants for admission.”
Id. at 297. Detention pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A) is required “if the examining immigration officer
determines that [a noncitizen] seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be
admitted.” Noncitizens detained pursuant to § 1225(b)(2) cannot be released on bond.
Section 1226(a) sets the “default rule” for detaining noncitizens “already present in the
United States.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303. Under § 1226(a), a noncitizen “may be arrested and
detained pending a decision on whether the [noncitizen] is to be removed from the United States.”
Case 2:26-cv-00684-SMD-KRS Document 12 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Noncitizens detained pursuant to § 1226(a) are therefore generally entitled to individualized bond
hearings. See id. at 306.
Sections 1225(b)(2)(A) and 1226(a) are mutually exclusive in that both provisions cannot
simultaneously govern Petitioner’s detention. E.g., Romero v. Hyde, 795 F. Supp. 3d 271, 286 (D.
Mass. 2025); see also, Patel v. Crowley, No. 25-cv-11180, 2025 WL 2996787, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct.
24, 2025); Artiga v. Genalo, No. 25-cv-5208, 2025 WL 2829434, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2025).
Section 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2), governs Petitioner’s detention because he was
“already present in the United States” at the time of his arrest. Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303.
Petitioner has continuously resided in the United States for over 20 years and was detained in the
U.S. interior. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1, 22. He is therefore not subject to the mandatory detention provisions
of § 1225, which apply to those seeking admission, specifically noncitizens who present at a port
of entry or are apprehended immediately after entering. Petitioner is instead entitled to a bond
hearing under § 1226(a). See Aragon v. Noem, No. 2:26-CV-00065, 2026 WL 458449, at *2
(D.N.M. Feb. 18, 2026); Cortez-Gonzalez v. Noem, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2025 WL 3485771, at *3
(D.N.M. Dec. 4, 2025); Velasquez Salazar v. Dedos, No. 1:25-cv-00835-DHU-JMR, 2025 WL
2676729, at *4 (D.N.M. Sept. 17, 2025); Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-Ybarra, No. 2:25-cv-01031-KG-
JFR, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3 (D.N.M. Nov. 14, 2025); see also Figuera v. Ripa, No. 26-CV-
20307-JB, 2026 WL 467569, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2026); Wuilmer v. Noem, No. 25-CV-3236
(NEB/JFD), 2026 WL 458457, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 18, 2026); Villatoro v. Ripa, No. 2:26-CV-
00213-SPC-DNF, 2026 WL 452432, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2026).
Respondents argue that the relief provided to Petitioner has rendered his petition moot.
Doc. 10 at 2. Specifically, Petitioner received a bond hearing on February 4, 2026, where bond
was denied because Petitioner’s status as an “applicant seeking admission” stripped the
Case 2:26-cv-00684-SMD-KRS Document 12 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 7

4
immigration court of jurisdiction to grant bond. See Doc. 10-2. Courts in this district have held
otherwise, finding that bond denied for lack of jurisdiction does not moot a petition. See Velasquez
Salazar v. Dedos, 806 F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1239 (D.N.M. 2025); Cortez-Gonzalez v. Noem, 811 F.
Supp. 3d 1287, 1293 (D.N.M. 2025); Gnadji Lazare v. Mary De Anda-Ybarra, et al., No. 2:26-
CV-00808-KG-KK, 2026 WL 1009115, at *1 (D.N.M. Apr. 14, 2026); Aragon v. Noem, No. 2:26-
CV-00065-KG-JHR, 2026 WL 458449, at *1 (D.N.M. Feb. 18, 2026).
II. The Government’s Detention of Petitioner Violates His Fifth Amendment Rights
The Court finds that Petitioner’s continued detention violates his Fifth Amendment rights.
Courts analyze due process claims in two steps: the first asks whether there exists a protected
liberty interest under the Due Process Clause, and the second examines the procedures necessary
to ensure any deprivation of that protected liberty interest accords with the Constitution. Garcia
Domingo v. Castro, 806 F. Supp. 1246, 1251–52 (D.N.M. Oct. 15, 2025) (citing Ky. Dep’t of
Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989)). “Freedom from imprisonment—from
government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty
that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. “It is well established that
the Fifth Amendment entitles [noncitizens] to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993). Though the Government “may constitutionally detain
deportable aliens during the limited period necessary for their removal proceedings,” that “limited
period” cannot be indefinite. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 527 (2003). As the length of detention
stretches on, an individual’s due process interests escalate and the government’s burden to justify
continued detention mounts. Id. at 529; Jennings, 583 U.S. at 310–11; Mohamed v. Sec’y Dep’t
of Homeland Sec., 376 F. Supp. 3d 950, 957 (D. Minn. 2018).
Case 2:26-cv-00684-SMD-KRS Document 12 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 7

5
The Government has offered neither a justification nor a formal process for the deprivation
of Petitioner’s protected liberty interest. While the Court recognizes that the length of residency
does not constitute legal authorization to remain in the country, the prevailing interpretation of
Sections 1225 and 1226, both by this Court and a majority of courts nationwide, indicates that
noncitizens apprehended within the U.S. interior are entitled to certain constitutional procedural
safeguards.
The United State’s power to admit or exclude aliens is no longer plenary once an alien
enters the country, because the Due Process Clause applies to “all persons.” See Landon v.
Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982) (“Once an alien gains admission to our country and begins to
develop the ties that go with permanent residence his constitutional status changes accordingly.”).
Petitioner possesses a protected liberty interest in remaining free from detention and was deprived
of that interest without constitutionally adequate process.
Because Respondents have offered no independent legal basis for continued custody,
Petitioner is entitled to relief pursuant to § 2241. See Martin Ramirez v. Noem, No. 2:26-cv-00063-
SMD-GJF, 2026 WL 381869, at *7 (D.N.M. Feb. 11, 2026); Cortez-Gonzalez, 2025 WL 3485771,
at *3.
Case 2:26-cv-00684-SMD-KRS Document 12 Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 7

6
CONCLUSION
It is hereby ORDERED:
1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is GRANTED;
2) Respondents shall release Petitioner within 24 hours of this Order being entered;
3) Respondents shall facilitate Petitioner’s transportation from the detention facility
by notifying Petitioner’s counsel when and where he can be collected, and by
providing all necessary identity and travel documents to board a domestic flight to
return to New York;
4) Respondents SHALL file a notice of compliance within two business days of
Petitioner’s release. This notice must specify: (1) the date, (2) the time, and (3) the
manner of departure (e.g., transport to a bus station, designated drop-off location,
or other arrangements). Additionally, the notice must include (4) a description or
copies of all discharge and travel documents provided to Petitioner at the time of
release;
5) Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation hearing
before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a);
6) Respondents SHALL NOT remove Petitioner to any third country to which he does
not have a removal order without first providing him with constitutionally
compliant procedures;
7) The Expedited Motion for Constitutional Bond Hearing (Doc. 9) is DENIED as
MOOT;
Case 2:26-cv-00684-SMD-KRS Document 12 Filed 04/15/26 Page 6 of 7

7
8) 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
SARAH M. DAVENPORT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00684-SMD-KRS Document 12 Filed 04/15/26 Page 7 of 7