Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
YONY SANDOVAL PRADA ZAMBRANO,
Petitioner,
v. 1:26-cv-01186-KG-SCY
TODD BLANCHE, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Yony Sandoval Prada Zambrano’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 5. Because Petitioner 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, a native and citizen of Venezuela, entered the United States in 2023 without
inspection or parole. Doc. 1 at 7. Upon entry, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)
apprehended Petitioner, served him with a Notice to Appear, and released him on his own
recognizance. Id.; Doc. 5-1. He has filed a petition for asylum, which remains pending. Doc. 1 at
7. He resides in Chicago, Illinois, with his girlfriend and eight-year-old daughter. Id. He has
complied with all immigration requirements and “has only a minor criminal offense, which is not
enumerated under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c).” Id. at 2, 7.
On December 3, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents arrested
Petitioner as he returned from driving his daughter to school. Id. at 7–8. He remains at the Cibola
County Correctional Center in Milan, New Mexico. Id. at 8. The Government did not provide him
“any pre-deprivation process.” Id. at 3.
Case 1:26-cv-01186-KG-SCY Document 6 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)
and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See id. at 8–10. He also argues that ICE
violated the Fourth Amendment when it arrested him without a warrant. See id. at 12–14. He seeks
immediate release. Id. at 14. The Government opposes the petition. See Doc. 5.
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 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
The Court concludes that (A) Petitioner’s detention violates the INA, (B) Petitioner’s
detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (C) release is warranted.
A. Petitioner’s detention violates the INA.
The 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, 8 U.S.C. § 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 irrelevant here, § 1225 “mandates
detention and affords no bond hearing.” Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *1
(D.N.M.). This regime includes noncitizens who express a fear of persecution during expedited
removal and “shall be detained” while their credible-fear claims are adjudicated. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV).
By contrast, 8 U.S.C. § 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
Case 1:26-cv-01186-KG-SCY Document 6 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 5

3
detention of noncitizens, “on a warrant issued by the Attorney General...pending a decision on
whether [they are] to be removed.” Under federal regulations, a noncitizen detained under
§ 1226(a) is entitled to an individualized bond hearing at the “outset of detention.” Jennings, 583
U.S. at 306.
Consistent with the overwhelming majority of district courts to consider the issue, the Court
concludes that § 1226(a) governs here.1 See Barco Mercado v. Francis, 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). DHS detained
Petitioner upon his entry in 2023 and initiated removal proceedings by serving a Notice to Appear.
Doc. 1 at 7; Doc. 5-1 at 1. DHS released Petitioner on his own recognizance. Doc. 1 at 7. He
timely applied for asylum and has complied with all immigration requirements. Id. Petitioner is
therefore a noncitizen detained “pending a decision on whether [he is] to be removed,” and his
detention is governed by § 1226(a). See Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303. Petitioner’s continued detention
without a bond determination is unlawful under the INA.
Moreover, this Court’s prior decisions support the same conclusion. The Government
concedes that the material facts here are “substantially similar” to those in Patel v. Noem, 2026 WL
103163 (D.N.M.), in which the Court concluded that § 1226 governs. Doc. 5 at 3. The Court has
reached the same conclusion in numerous similar cases. See, e.g., Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-Ybarra,
2025 WL 3187432, at *3 (D.N.M.); Arroyo Lopez v. Noem, 2026 WL 776332, at *3 (D.N.M.);
1 There is currently a circuit split on this issue. The Second Circuit has held that individuals
like Petitioner are entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Cunha v. Freden, ---
F.4th ----, 2026 WL 1146044 (2d Cir. 2026). The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have reached the
opposite conclusion. See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila v.
Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026). The Tenth Circuit has not yet addressed the question.
Case 1:26-cv-01186-KG-SCY Document 6 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Aguilar v. Lyons, 2026 WL 851237, at *2 (D.N.M.). Because the Government offers no new basis
for Petitioner’s continued detention, Petitioner is entitled to relief.
B. Petitioner’s detention violates the Due Process Clause.
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the Government from depriving any
person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V.
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical
restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533
U.S. at 690. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles [noncitizens] to due process of
law in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993); see also Zadvydas, 533
U.S. at 693. The Government’s power to admit or exclude aliens is no longer plenary once an alien
enters the country, because the Due Process Clause applies to “all persons.” Landon v. Plasencia,
459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982) (“Once an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the
ties that go with permanent residence his constitutional status changes accordingly.”). Because §
1226(a) is controlling here, Petitioner “is entitled—as a right—to an individualized bond hearing.”
Cortez-Gonzalez v. Noem, 2025 WL 3485771, at *5 (D.N.M.). Petitioner’s continued detention
without such review “constitutes an ongoing violation of [his] right to due process.” Id.
C. The proper remedy is release.
The Court next considers the appropriate remedy. Federal courts are authorized under
§ 2243 to “dispose of [a habeas petition] as law and justice require” and possess broad discretion to
fashion appropriate relief. Clayton v. Jones, 700 F.3d 435, 443 (10th Cir. 2012); see also Burton v.
Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting that a federal court “possesses power to grant
any form of relief necessary to satisfy the requirement of justice”) (emphasis in original). Given the
Government’s conduct here, release is warranted. See Singh v. Carnes, 2026 WL 446579, at *1
(D.N.M.) (ordering release where the Government “failed to articulate a legitimate interest in
Case 1:26-cv-01186-KG-SCY Document 6 Filed 05/01/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Petitioner’s continued detention”); Palomeque-Carrion v. Bondi, 2026 WL 895567, at *2 (D.N.M.)
(same).
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Court orders that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is granted. The Government shall release
Petitioner within 24 hours of this Order. The Government shall not impose any new
conditions of release beyond those in place prior to Petitioner’s detention.
2. The Government is enjoined from redetaining Petitioner absent a predetention hearing
before a neutral immigration judge under § 1226(a), at which the Government must
establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk.
3. The Government shall file a status report within 10 business days of this Order certifying
compliance.
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-01186-KG-SCY Document 6 Filed 05/01/26 Page 5 of 5