Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOSE LUIS VILLA-SORI,
Petitioner,
v. 	No. 26-cv-0902-MIS-JFR
WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center,
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office
Director 	of 	Enforcement 	and 	Removal
Operations, 	El 	Paso 	Field 	Office,
Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement;
TODD 	LYONS, 	Acting 	Director
Immigration 	and 	Customs 	Enforcement;
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, U.S. Department
Of 	Homeland 	Security; 	and 	PAMELA
BONDI, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents,1
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ENJOINING TRANSFER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (ECF 1) (Petition). Petitioner is an immigration detainee at the Otero County Processing
Center (OCPC) and is proceeding pro se. The exhibits to the Petition reflect he has been in the
United States since at least 2019. ECF 1 at 12. The Petition alleges Petitioner was detained on
January 19, 2026 without due process. Id. at 6. He seeks an immediate release from custody or a
bond hearing. Id. at 7.
Having reviewed the record, the Petition raises a colorable claim for relief. The Clerk’s
1 	The Court will add the above-mentioned parties as Respondents in this case. 	See Torres-
Torres v. Miller, 2020 WL 4430519 (D.N.M. July 31, 2020) (discussing the party respondents in an
immigration habeas case); Lowmaster v. Dir., Bureau of Prisons, 2024 WL 5135970, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec.
17, 2024) (“the Court notes that it routinely substitutes the” proper parties as “respondent in habeas cases”);
Danderson v. Page, 2024 WL 3913051, at *2 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2024) (substituting the proper party
respondent in a habeas case).
Case 2:26-cv-00902-MIS-JFR Document 4 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Office served Respondents—including the Respondents added in this Order—with the Petition
and added them as notice-recipients via CM/ECF, pursuant to this District’s Standing Order
Regarding Service of Process in Immigration Habeas Petitions filed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Case 1:26-mc-00004, ECF No. 3 (D.N.M. Jan. 28, 2026). ECF No. 2.
Within ten (10) business days of entry of this Order, the United States Attorney’s Office
(USAO) shall respond to the Petition and show cause why the requested relief should not be
granted. Respondents are reminded that this Court has already decided certain issues that appear
to be presented by the Petition. See Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, 2:25-cv-01113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL
92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026) (ordering a bond hearing); Singh v. Noem, Case No. 1:25-cv-01266-
MIS-KRS, 2026 WL 242249 (D.N.M. Jan. 29, 2026) (ordering immediate release); Intriago-
Sedgwick v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF, 2025 WL 3688155 (D.N.M. Dec. 19, 2025),
report and recommendation adopted No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF, ECF No. 27 (D.N.M. Jan. 6,
2026) (same); see also Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Zhao v. Castro, Case
No. 2:26-cv-00079-MIS-JMR (D.N.M. Jan. 20, 2026) (ordering a bond hearing).
In making these rulings, the Court has joined the overwhelming majority of courts that
have considered this issue and concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs the detention of
noncitizens who have been residing in the United States after their entry, rather than the mandatory
detention provisions of § 1225(b)(2). See, e.g., Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.,
161 F.4th 1048, 1061 (7th Cir. 2025) (concluding that § 1226(a) applied to noncitizens already
present in the country who were not admitted); Barco Mercado v. Francis, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025
WL 3295903, at *4 n.22 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (noting the interpretation that § 1225 requires
mandatory detention of all noncitizens living in the United States was rejected in over 350 cases
“decided by over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty different courts spread across the United
States” and collecting cases in an Appendix A); Ochoa Ochoa v. Noem, No. 25-cv-10865, 2025
Case 2:26-cv-00902-MIS-JFR Document 4 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 3

3
WL 2938779, at *5 & n.8 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2025) (collecting cases). Any response filed by
Respondents must therefore demonstrate that the facts of this case warrant a departure from the
Court’s prior rulings. If the federal Respondents fail to timely comply with this Order, the
Court may grant the relief requested in the Petition without further notice.
IT IS ORDERED that the USAO shall answer the Petition within ten (10) business days
of entry of this Order and show cause, if any, why the Petition should not be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to preserve the status quo in the interim, Respondents
are ENJOINED from transferring Petitioner to any facility outside the District of New Mexico
and/or from removing him from the United States during the pendency of this habeas action.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall UPDATE the case caption to
match the party Respondents added/substituted via this Order.
____________________________________
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00902-MIS-JFR Document 4 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 3