Bah v. Noem et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00039-CNS
DJOBO BAH,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security,
TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
ARTHUR WILSON, in his official capacity as ICE Field Officer Director,
JOHNNY CHOATE, in his official capacity as the warden of the Aurora Immigration
Detention Facility,
PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as the United Status Attorney General,
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW,
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS,
Respondents.
ORDER
Sometimes it is difficult to arrive at conclusions or resolve issues. Due, perhaps,
to an issue’s complexity, or the lack of any guidance available to help resolve it. Neither
circumstance is present here.
Before the Court is Petitioner’s fully briefed Verified Petition for Habeas Corpus.
ECF 	No. 	1. 	As 	the 	parties’ 	briefing 	demonstrates 	that 	Petitioner’s 	challenge 	is
fundamentally legal in nature, the Court declines to hold a hearing regarding Petitioner’s
Case No. 1:26-cv-00039-CNS Document 18 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
challenge, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and, for the reasons explained below, the Court
GRANTS the petition. Explained further below, Respondents are ORDERED to provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing. In granting the petition, the Court presumes familiarity with
the parties’ briefing, and this case’s factual and procedural background. See ECF Nos. 1,
15, 17.
I. 	ANALYSIS
In his petition, Petitioner asserts constitutional and statutory claims, see ECF No.
1 at 12–13, seeking a bond hearing or immediate release, see generally id. This request
for relief, and the legal claims and arguments upon which it’s premised, are familiar to the
Court and the parties. Indeed, as Respondents recognize in advancing their unpersuasive
arguments that Petitioner is an “applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2),”
“numerous nonprecedential decisions have reasoned otherwise.” ECF No. 15 at 2. The
Court has issued several of those decisions, concluding against substantially similar
factual backgrounds—like many other courts—that petitioners were not subject to 8
U.S.C. § 1225’s mandatory detention provisions, and that Respondents were wrong to
deny those petitioners “an opportunity to seek release on bond.” Garcia Cortes v. Noem,
No. 1:25–cv–02677–CNS, 2025 WL 2652880, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025); Valera v.
Baltazar, No. 1:25–cv–03744–CNS, 2025 WL 3496174, at *2 (D. Colo. Dec. 5, 2025)
(rejecting argument that petitioner who had been in the United States for years was
subject to mandatory detention and noting that “the legal issues presented here have
been recently litigated before and decided by this Court, as well as many other courts
across 	the 	country”); 	Hernandez 	v. 	Baltazar, 	No. 	1:25–cv–03094–CNS, 2025 	WL
Case No. 1:26-cv-00039-CNS Document 18 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
2996643, at *7 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2025 (“The Court joins the many other courts nationwide
who have declined to accept Respondents’ novel new interpretation of decades-old law.”
(collecting cases)). And cases’ interpretation of Jennings—which cut the other way,
relative to Respondents’ own—bolster the Court’s conclusion that Respondents err in
arguing § 1225 governs Petitioner’s detention. See, e.g., Espinoza Ruiz v. Baltazar, No.
1:25–cv–03642–CNS, 2025 WL 3294762, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov. 26, 2025) (discussing
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018)). Cf. ECF No. 15 at 4.*
Because Petitioner is improperly detained under § 1225, the Court agrees with
Petitioner that he is entitled to a bond hearing. See ECF No. 1 at 9; Garcia Cortes, 2025
WL 2652880, at *3–4. Respondents concede as much in their response: “Thus, even if
the Court finds that Petitioner is detained not under § 1225(b)(2) but under § 1226(a)(1),
the proper remedy is a bond hearing—as expressly contemplated in § 1226(a)(1).” ECF
No. 15; see also ECF No. 1 at 1.
II. 	CONCLUSION
Consistent with the above analysis, the Court ORDERS Respondents to provide
Petitioner with a bond hearing within FIVE DAYS of this Order. See § 1226. At that
hearing, 	Respondents 	SHALL 	bear 	the 	burden 	of 	justifying 	Petitioner’s 	continued
detention by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents SHALL file a status report
* The Court notes that the parties’ briefs raise the question as to whether Petitioner is a member of a recently
certified class, and the effect this class certification has on the relief he seeks in the instant petition.
Compare ECF No. 15 at 13; and ECF No. 1 at 4, with Bautista v. Santacruz, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, Case No.
5:25–cv–01873–SSS–BFM, 2025 WL 3713987, at *30 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), judgment entered sub
nom. Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25–cv–01873–SSS–BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18,
2025). Any potential class membership does not affect the Court’s ability to adjudicate the instant petition,
given the Court’s determination that relief here is governed by § 1226. Compare § 1226, with Bautista, 2025
WL 3713987, at *30.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00039-CNS Document 18 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
within TEN DAYS of the date of this Court’s order to certify compliance. The status report
shall include if and when the bond hearing occurred, if bond was granted or denied, and
if bond was denied, the reasons for denial.
DATED this 27th day of January 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-00039-CNS Document 18 filed 01/27/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4