Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
FILIP AL-DAIIA,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:26-cv-01378-KG-JHR
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Filip Al-Daiia’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 6. 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 Russia, entered the United States at the San Ysidro Port of
Entry in 2022. Doc. 1 at 57. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
against the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Doc. 1 at 14. The Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”) subsequently issued a Notice to Appear, charging Petitioner as inadmissible and
initiating removal proceedings against him. Doc. 1 at 13.
In February 2024, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took Petitioner into
custody and transferred him to Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, New Mexico. Id. at
1; Doc. 6 at 3. On August 8, 2025, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under CAT, and ordered him removed. Doc. 1 at 13, 27.
Petitioner has appealed that decision, and that appeal is pending with the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”). Id. at 30.
Case 1:26-cv-01378-KG-JHR Document 7 Filed 05/18/26 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 Doc. 1 at 6. He seeks immediate release.
Id. at 7. The Government opposes the petition. See Doc. 6.
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
detention of noncitizens, “on a warrant issued by the Attorney General...pending a decision on
Case 1:26-cv-01378-KG-JHR Document 7 Filed 05/18/26 Page 2 of 5

3
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 50 courts). Petitioner entered the
United States in 2022. Doc. 1 at 20. DHS charged him as inadmissible and placed him in full
removal proceedings. See id. An immigration judge has ordered Petitioner removed, but that order
is not administratively final while his appeal remains pending. Doc. 1 at 30; see 8 C.F.R. §
1241.1(a)–(b) (a removal order becomes administratively final upon the earlier of the noncitizen’s
waiver of the right to appeal, or the expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal is filed). 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 (2018).
Moreover, this Court’s prior decisions control. The Government concedes that the material
facts here are similar to those in Patel v. Noem, 2026 WL 103163 (D.N.M.), where the Court
concluded that § 1226 governs. Doc. 6 at 2. 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.); 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.
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 § 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-01378-KG-JHR Document 7 Filed 05/18/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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.”). Given the
Government’s conduct 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 turns to the appropriate remedy. Federal courts are authorized under § 2243
to “dispose of [a habeas petition] as law and justice require” and thus 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
Petitioner’s continued detention”); Palomeque-Carrion v. Bondi, 2026 WL 895567, at *2 (D.N.M.)
(same).
Case 1:26-cv-01378-KG-JHR Document 7 Filed 05/18/26 Page 4 of 5

5
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 under § 1226(a) absent a
predetention hearing before a neutral immigration judge at which the Government must
establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk.2
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.
2 This Order does not affect the Government’s authority to redetain Petitioner under the
mandatory detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1231 if his order of removal becomes administratively
final.
Case 1:26-cv-01378-KG-JHR Document 7 Filed 05/18/26 Page 5 of 5