Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
OYBEKJON MUSTAFOKULOV,
Petitioner,
v. No. 26-cv-00488-KG-SCY
TODD LYONS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Oybekjon Mustafokulov’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 6. Because Petitioner’s challenge
presents a purely legal question, the Court declines to hold a hearing, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and
grants his petition for the reasons below.
I. Background
Petitioner entered the United States in 2021 and was placed in removal proceedings.
Doc. 1 at 4. The Department of Homeland Security released him on discretionary parole in 2021
and then re-arrested him on January 23, 2026. Id. at 5. Petitioner remains detained at Cibola
County Correctional Center in New Mexico. Id. at 1. An immigration court conducted a bond
hearing for Petitioner but denied bond under the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ruling in Matter
of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025).
II. Standard of Review
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks “release from unlawful physical
confinement.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). Habeas corpus review is
Case 1:26-cv-00488-KG-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 5

2
available if a noncitizen is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
III. Analysis
For the reasons below, the Court concludes that (A) 8 U.S.C. § 1226 governs Petitioner’s
detention, and (B) the proper remedy is a bond hearing where the Government bears the burden
of proof.
A. Section 1226 governs Petitioner’s detention.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) establishes distinct detention regimes
depending on whether a noncitizen is “seeking admission” to the United States. See Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288–89 (2018). First, § 1225 governs noncitizens detained at a port of
entry or shortly after entry, who are treated as “[noncitizens] seeking admission into the
country.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020). Absent
exceptions not relevant here, § 1225 “mandates detention and affords no bond hearing.” Pu
Sacvin v. De Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *1 (D.N.M.).
By contrast, § 1226(a) sets forth “the default rule” for detaining noncitizens “already in
the country.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303. Section § 1226(a) authorizes the arrest and detention of
noncitizens, “on a warrant issued by the Attorney General...pending a decision on whether [they
are] to be removed.” Under federal regulations, noncitizens detained under § 1226(a) are entitled
to individualized bond hearings at the “outset of detention.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 306.
Consistent with the overwhelming majority of district courts to consider the issue and this
Court’s prior findings, the Court finds that § 1226 governs here.1 See Barco Mercado v. Francis,
1 The Court acknowledges the recent Fifth Circuit decision holding that “[w]hile
[noncitizens] remain applicants” for admission, “they are...seeking admission.” Buenrostro-
Case 1:26-cv-00488-KG-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 5

3
2025 WL 3295903, at *13 (S.D.N.Y.) (collecting 362 district-court opinions nationwide and
noting that challengers prevailed in at least 350 of them, in decisions by over 160 judges across
fifty courts); Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432 (Gonzales, J.); Danierov v. Noem, 2026 WL 45288,
at *2 (D.N.M.). Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Petitioner five years after his
initial entry into the United States and did not apprehend him at or near the border. Accordingly,
§ 1225’s mandatory detention provision does not apply because Petitioner effected an entry into
the United States by living here for five years. Therefore, Petitioner’s detention absent a bond
hearing violates the INA.
B. The remedy is a bond hearing where the Government bears the burden of proof.
Petitioner’s prolonged detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and
therefore he is entitled to a bond hearing where the Government bears the burden of proof.
Because § 1226(a) governs here, Petitioner’s “continued detention without [an individualized
bond hearing] constitutes an ongoing violation of [his] right to due process.” Cortez-Gonzalez v.
Noem, 811 F. Supp. 3d 1287, 1298 (D.N.M. 2025). Where detention proceeds without
constitutionally adequate safeguards, the Court determines what additional procedures are due
under the balancing framework set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). See
Watson ex rel. Watson v. Beckel, 242 F.3d 1237, 1240 (10th Cir. 2001). That framework
considers (1) the private interest at stake; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation under the
procedures used and the value of additional safeguards; and (3) the Government’s interest,
including the burdens of additional procedures. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.
Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 323330, at *5 (5th Cir.). The Tenth Circuit has not yet
addressed this question.
Case 1:26-cv-00488-KG-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 5

4
The Mathews factors weigh in favor of shifting the burden. To start, Petitioner’s private
interest in remaining free from detention is substantial. “Freedom from imprisonment...lies at
the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690.
Second, the current procedures create a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation. Any
evidence Petitioner could have presented at his prior bond hearing was not meaningfully
considered because of the immigration court’s improper jurisdiction analysis. Doc. 1 at 5.
Courts have observed similar cases arising across the country, raising “serious concerns about
Petitioner’s access to a meaningful bond hearing.” Velasquez Salazar v. Dedos, 806 F. Supp. 3d
1231, 1243 (D.N.M. 2025) (collecting cases). Requiring the Government “to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk and/or a danger to the community ameliorates
those concerns.” Id.
Third, the Government’s interest does not outweigh these concerns. Although the
Government has a legitimate interest in ensuring appearance and protecting the community,
shifting the burden of proof imposes minimal additional burden. The Government has “vast
resources at its disposal to gather information about Petitioner’s eligibility for bond.” Id.
Moreover, detention has not been necessary to ensure Petitioner’s presence—he has appeared at
all immigration proceedings and complied with all conditions of release to date. See Doc. 1 at 5.
IV. Conclusion
The Court therefore grants Petitioner’s habeas petition, Doc. 1. The Court directs the
Government to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under § 1226(a) before an immigration
judge within seven (7) days of this Order. At that hearing, the Government has the burden of
justifying Petitioner’s detention by clear and convincing evidence. If the Government fails to do
Case 1:26-cv-00488-KG-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/01/26 Page 4 of 5

5
so, it must release Petitioner. The Court further orders the Government to file a status report
within ten (10) days of this Order confirming that it has complied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
Case 1:26-cv-00488-KG-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/01/26 Page 5 of 5