Diaz Marquez v. Baltasar et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. 26-cv-00293-CYC
BEIBY DE OMAR DIAZ MARQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTASAR, in his official capacity as Warden of the Aurora ICE Processing Center;
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
PAMELA JO BONDI, in her official capacity as the Attorney General of the United States;
TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and
ROBERT HAGAN, in his official capacity as Field Office Director of the Aurora Field Office of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Beiby de Omar Diaz Marquez, a detainee at the Aurora Contract Detention
Facility in Aurora, Colorado, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the
respondents, who control that facility, are improperly subjecting him to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 1 (the “Petition”). Instead, he says, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
governs his detention vel non. Because this is a fundamentally legal debate, there is no need
for a hearing on the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the reasons that follow, the Court
grants the Petition in part.
BACKGROUND
This case is one of numerous cases in this District and across the country seeking habeas
relief for immigrants detained within the United States and denied bond hearings under a new
interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226. E.g., Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-
Case No. 1:26-cv-00293-CYC Document 12 filed 02/10/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2
PAB, 2026 WL 290989 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Jimenez Facio v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03592-
CYC, 2025 WL 3559128 (D. Colo. Dec. 12, 2025); Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02677-
CNS, 2025 WL 2652880 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025); Batz Barreno v. Baltasar, No. 25-cv-03017-
GPG-TPO, 2025 WL 3190936 (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2025); Loa Caballero v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-
03120-NYW, 2025 WL 2977650 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2025). The petitioner seeks release or, in the
alternative, a bond hearing. ECF No. 1 at 13.
The petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, has lived in the United States since 2005 and was
never inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 5, 47–48, 50. As
a result, he had been present in the United States for years before he was encountered by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on January 14, 2026 in Preston, Maryland. ECF
No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 49. The petitioner argues that he would qualify for release on bond under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226, and the respondents do not offer any evidence of a criminal history that requires
mandatory detention. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Indeed, they acknowledge that this case is not
materially different from others that this Court has previously resolved. ECF No. 11 at 2 (citing
Jimenez Facio, 2025 WL 3559128). Nevertheless, the respondents repeat the arguments they
made in previous cases. They meet with the same result.
ANALYSIS
A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to any person who demonstrates he is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
This includes “[c]hallenges to immigration detention.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305,
1310 (10th Cir. 2004). The individual in custody bears the burden of proving that their detention
is unlawful. Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 286 (1941).
Case No. 1:26-cv-00293-CYC Document 12 filed 02/10/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3
To meet that burden, the petitioner argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applies to him, “that
aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention,” Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)); see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) (providing for discretionary detention); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (providing
framework for requesting a bond determination), and that he has received no such hearing. As
the respondents correctly point out, this Court has previously resolved this legal question in favor
of a similarly situated petitioner. Jimenez Facio, 2025 WL 3559128, at *1–4. The Court remains
firmly convinced that it and the other judges in the District who have addressed this issue have
correctly decided those cases and incorporates its analysis from Jimenez Facio. Accordingly, the
Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing that has not been provided in violation
of due process.
There is a final matter. The petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 1 at 13.
But D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3(a) requires that “a motion for attorney fees . . . be supported by
affidavit,” and no such affidavit supported the request. Further, “a motion involving a contested
issue of law shall . . . be supported by a recitation of legal authority in the motion.”
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). As a result, the Court denies this portion of the Petition without
prejudice. If the petitioner chooses to file a motion for attorney fees, it must comply with all
applicable rules and provide legal authority for the request. See L.G. v. Choate, 744 F. Supp. 3d
1172, 1187 (D. Colo. 2024).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition, ECF No. 1, is
GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part.
It is further ORDERED that
Case No. 1:26-cv-00293-CYC Document 12 filed 02/10/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4
(1) the respondents shall provide the petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within seven days of this Order;
(2) the respondents are ENJOINED from denying bond to the petitioner on the basis that
he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); and
(3) the respondents shall file a status report within five days of the petitioner’s bond
hearing, stating whether he has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was
denied, the reasons for that denial.
Entered and dated this 10th day of February, 2026, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-00293-CYC Document 12 filed 02/10/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4