Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ARISOLKIS SANCHEZ SUAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-01461-MIS-GBW
DORA CASTRO, Warden of the Otero
County Processing Center; TODD LYONS,
Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; MARY DE ANDA-
YBARRA, El Paso Field Office Director,
Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
TODD BLANCHE, Acting U.S. Attorney
General; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 2241
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Arisolkis Sanchez Suarez’s Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed May 7, 2026.
Petitioner is a citizen of Cuba who presented at the El Paso, Texas port of entry on December 20,
2024, for a CBP One appointment. Id. at 10. Following the appointment, an immigration official
granted Petitioner entry into the United States on two years’ parole that expires December 19,
2026. Id. In December 2025, Petitioner filed for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment
Act. Id. She has authorization to work in the United States and a Social Security number. Id. at
11. She has no criminal record. Id. at 12.
Case 2:26-cv-01461-MIS-GBW Document 7 Filed 05/22/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Nevertheless, on February 10, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
Officers arrested Petitioner as she left the courthouse after an immigration appointment where,
apparently, an Immigration Judge granted the Government’s request for expedited removal and
dismissed Petitioner’s immigration proceedings. Id. at 10. It appears that she has been in detention
ever since, and she is currently detained at the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New
Mexico. Id.
On May 7, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, arguing
that her detention violates her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. Id. at 12.
On May 8, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents to show cause why the Petition should
not be granted. ECF No. 4. The Court instructed that Respondents must “specify whether the
Court has already ruled on the legal issue(s) in this case and, if so, whether the facts are
distinguishable from prior rulings.” Id.
On May 22, 2026, the Federal Respondents1 filed a Response to the Petition. ECF No. 6.
Therein, counsel for Respondents acknowledges that the facts of this case are “substantially
similar” to Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 WL 266619 (D.N.M. Feb. 2,
2026), and that “this Court’s decision in Duhan v. Noem, 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.” Id. at
1 The Clerk’s Office served all Respondents with the Petition 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. 3. However, as has become customary in these cases, the
Warden did not respond to the Petition.
Case 2:26-cv-01461-MIS-GBW Document 7 Filed 05/22/26 Page 2 of 4

3
2-3. However, Respondents maintain that Petitioner is an applicant for admission seeking
admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Id. at 2.
The Court finds that 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, and 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, her continued detention without a bond hearing
violates her Fifth Amendment right to due process, and, as such, she 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 her immediate release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 6.
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.
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Arisolkis Sanchez
Suarez from custody/detention;
3. Respondents SHALL return all of Petitioner’s personal belongings to Petitioner;
4. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner—absent a final order of removal—
without a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8
Case 2:26-cv-01461-MIS-GBW Document 7 Filed 05/22/26 Page 3 of 4

4
U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the Government must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk; and
5. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-01461-MIS-GBW Document 7 Filed 05/22/26 Page 4 of 4