Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
ISAAC ANTONIO VELASQUE
SALAZAR,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 1:26-CV-245
Judge Michael R. Barrett
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Isaac Antonio Velasque Salazar’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1).
Respondents have filed a return and response in opposition, (Doc. 11), and Petitioner
has replied, (Doc. 13).1 The petition is now ripe for review.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a citizen of Peru, entered the United States in March 2023. (Doc. 1,
PageID 10). After being encountered by Border Patrol agents near Yuma, Arizona,
Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings and released on his own recognizance.
(Doc. 11, PageID 46). Petitioner has a pending asylum application and a valid work
permit. (Doc. 1, PageID 10).
The record reflects that, on March 5, 2026, Petitioner was detained by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at his place of employment. (Id.). He
1 Defendant Richard Jones, Warden of the Butler County Jail, also moves to dismiss for failure to state
a claim. That motion will be denied as moot.
Case: 1:26-cv-00245-MRB-KLL Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
remains in custody at the Butler County Jail on behalf of federal immigration
authorities, and has not been afforded a bond hearing.
The instant petition followed on March 9, 2026, with Petitioner arguing that
his ongoing detention without a bond hearing violates both the Fifth Amendment and
the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Petitioner seeks immediate release
from custody, or, in the alternative, a constitutionally adequate custody
redetermination hearing before an IJ. Respondents counter that Petitioner is subject
to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and his detention does not violate
his due process rights.
II. CONTROLLING LAW & ANALYSIS
As Respondents note, the undersigned has already found in substantially
similar cases that (1) Respondents’ novel and overly broad interpretation of § 1225(b)
is flawed; and (2) a Petitioner’s detention under the mandatory detention framework
violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. 11, PageID 42)
(“Respondents acknowledge that this Court’s prior decisions will control the result
here . . . as the facts presented in this action are not materially distinguishable for
purposes of the Court’s prior decisions on these issues.”). The Court finds again, for
the reasons stated in prior opinions, that Petitioner’s continued detention is unlawful
in the absence of an individualized, constitutionally adequate custody
redetermination hearing. See Azalyar v. Raycraft, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, No. 1:25-CV-
916, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3705 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 2, 2026); Ortiz Gutierrez v. Raycraft,
___ F.Supp.3d ___, No. 1:26-CV-69, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32801 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18,
Case: 1:26-cv-00245-MRB-KLL Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
2026); Garcia Gonzales v. Raycraft, No. 1:26-CV-112, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35094
(S.D. Ohio Feb. 20, 2026); Wali v. Raycraft, No. 1:26-CV-145, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
36339 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2026).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1), is GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED that, on or before March 24, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. EDT,
Respondents shall either release Petitioner from custody or provide Petitioner with
a constitutionally adequate bond hearing before an IJ. In the event of the latter:
(1) Respondents shall provide a copy of this order to the IJ
prior to any hearing;
(2) the IJ shall have jurisdiction over the matter and be
empowered to grant bond. See Ortiz Gutierrez, 2026 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 32801, at *5-9;
(3) Respondents shall bear the burden of persuasion of
justifying Petitioner’s continued detention and adduce
clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger
to the community. See Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133,
155 (1st Cir. 2024), reh’g en banc denied; Soto-Medina v.
Lynch, No. 1:25-CV-1704, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11113,
at *12-27 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026); and
(4) the IJ shall consider whether less restrictive
alternatives to detention can reasonably address the
government’s interest, as well as Petitioner’s “ability to
pay when setting any bond amount.” M.P.L. v. Arteta,
No. 25-CV-5307, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204541, at *20
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2025).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a status report
within one (1) business day following the above deadline to certify compliance with
the Court’s ruling. The certification shall note whether and when a bond hearing was
held, whether bond was granted or denied, and the reasons therefore.
Case: 1:26-cv-00245-MRB-KLL Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this grant of relief, see Gall v. Scroggy,
603 F.3d 346, 352 (6th Cir. 2010), and adjudicate timely petitions filed under the
Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Michael R. Barrett
United States District Judge
Case: 1:26-cv-00245-MRB-KLL Doc #: 14 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>