Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ROCIO GARCIA GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00851-SMD-GBW
TODD BLANCHE,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. 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 Rocio Garcia Gonzalez, a citizen of Mexico, is currently in the custody of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Otero County Processing Center in
Chaparral, New Mexico. Doc. 1 ¶ 10. Petitioner has resided in the United States for approximately
twenty years. Id. ¶ 2. She is now married to a United States citizen and has two children, both of
whom are United States citizens. Id. ¶ 20. ICE detained Petitioner when she appeared at a
scheduled immigration hearing on October 29, 2025 and she has remained in its custody since. Id.
¶ 6. Petitioner has a shoplifting offense for which she paid a fine and received no custodial
sentence. Id. ¶ 22.
Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings and sought cancellation of removal. After
an immigration judge denied the relief, Petitioner filed an appeal, which remains pending. Id. ¶ 25.
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the case caption shall be updated to reflect that Todd Blanche is
the Acting Attorney General of the United States. All future filings should be in the name of the substituted party.
Case 2:26-cv-00851-SMD-GBW Document 12 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Petitioner challenges her ongoing detention as a violation of, inter alia, the Fifth Amendment and
the Administrative Procedure Act. Id. ¶¶ 64–76.
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.”
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).
Case 2:26-cv-00851-SMD-GBW Document 12 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Section 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2), governs Petitioner’s detention because she was
“already present in the United States” at the time of her arrest. Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303.
Petitioner has resided in the United States since 2005 and was detained in the U.S. interior. Doc.
1 ¶ 6, 20. She 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).
II. The Government’s Detention of Petitioner Violates Her Fifth Amendment Rights
The Court finds that Petitioner’s continued detention violates her 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
Case 2:26-cv-00851-SMD-GBW Document 12 Filed 04/16/26 Page 3 of 6

4
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).
The Government has offered neither a justification nor a formal process for the deprivation
of Petitioner’s protected liberty interest. ICE detained Petitioner during a routine check-in
appointment, effectively penalizing the very compliance the agency required. 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.
The Government concedes that the material facts of this case are similar from those in
Martin Ramirez v. Noem, No. 2:26-cv-00063-SMD-GJF, 2026 WL 381869, at *7 (D.N.M. Feb.
11, 2026). See Doc. 9 at 2. Furthermore, the Government acknowledges that Martin Ramirez
Case 2:26-cv-00851-SMD-GBW Document 12 Filed 04/16/26 Page 4 of 6

5
controls the outcome here should the Court adhere to that precedent. See id. Because Respondents
have offered no independent legal basis for continued custody, Petitioner is entitled to relief
pursuant to § 2241. See Martin Ramirez, 2026 WL 381869; Cortez-Gonzalez, 2025 WL 3485771,
at *3.
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 she can be collected, and by
providing all necessary identity and travel documents to return to her primary
address;
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 she
does not have a removal order without first providing her with constitutionally
compliant procedures;
Case 2:26-cv-00851-SMD-GBW Document 12 Filed 04/16/26 Page 5 of 6

6
7) 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-00851-SMD-GBW Document 12 Filed 04/16/26 Page 6 of 6