Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SERGIO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ BAUTISTA,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-01318-MIS-JMR
DORA CASTRO, Warden of Otero County
Processing Center; MARY DE ANDA-
YBARRA, Field Office Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, El
Paso Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; MARKWAYNE MULLIN,
Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; and TODD BLANCHE,
Acting United States Attorney General,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Sergio Antonio Hernandez Bautista’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed April 27, 2026. Respondents
Mary De Anda-Ybarra, Todd Blanche, and Markwayne Mullin (“Federal Respondents”),1 filed a
Response on May 13, 2026, ECF No. 10.
Respondents argue that Petitioner is an applicant for admission subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Id. at 1. Respondents acknowledge, however, “that this
Court—along with many others—has reached the opposite conclusion in numerous other cases,
including Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No. 2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M.
1 Respondent Dora Castro did not file a response or otherwise appear in this case. It has become
standard practice in these habeas cases for the warden of the relevant detention center to either appear and adopt the
federal respondents’ arguments, see, e.g., Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem, Case No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF, Notice of
Joinder In USA Respondents’ Forthcoming Claims and Defenses, ECF No. 11 (D.N.M. Dec. 3, 2025), or not appear
at all, see Francisco v. Dedos, Case No. 1:25-cv-01229-MIS-GJF, Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition
at 8, ECF No. 53 (D.N.M. Jan. 20, 2026).
Case 2:26-cv-01318-MIS-JMR Document 11 Filed 05/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Jan. 13, 2026).” Id. at 1-2. Respondents further acknowledge that “this Court’s decision in Lopez-
Romero would control the outcome of this case should the Court chose to continue to follow its
reasoning.” Id. at 2.
Ultimately, the Court finds that Respondents did not distinguish this case from other cases
involving the detention of noncitizens already present in the United States. Id. at 1-3. As the facts
of this case are materially indistinguishable from prior cases the Undersigned Judge has decided
involving habeas petitioners who were detained within the United States, rather than at a border
crossing or port of entry, the Court adopts the findings contained in its Order Granting the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No. 2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026
WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026). Briefly, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs
Petitioner’s detention, his continued detention without a bond hearing violates his Fifth
Amendment right to due process, and, as such, he is entitled to habeas relief. The Court further
finds that Respondents failed to articulate a legitimate interest in Petitioner’s continued detention
and therefore orders his immediate release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 10.
The Court further orders that Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a pre-deprivation
bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk.
Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order and to entertain any
motions for attorneys’ fees.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Sergio Antonio Hernandez Bautista’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention;
Case 2:26-cv-01318-MIS-JMR Document 11 Filed 05/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation hearing
before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk;
4. Respondents SHALL NOT impose any new condition of release;
5. Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order; and
6. 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.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-01318-MIS-JMR Document 11 Filed 05/14/26 Page 3 of 3