Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
NOEL LECHUGA-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:26-cv-01624-KG-GJF
TODD LYONS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Noel Rodriguez’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 5. 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, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States in 2018. Doc. 1 at 2. In March
2026, Immigration Customs and Enforcement (“ICE”) agents arrested Petitioner in Lovington, New
Mexico, after he was arrested by Lovington Police. Id. at 2. Petitioner remains detained at the
Torrance County Detention Center in New Mexico. Doc. 1 at 1. Petitioner has not been afforded a
bond hearing.
Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Doc. 1 at 6. He seeks immediate release from custody. Doc. 1 at 8.
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
Case 1:26-cv-01624-KG-GJF Document 6 Filed 06/08/26 Page 1 of 3

2
“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 Petitioner’s detention violates the INA and the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment and that release is warranted.
A. 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 that §
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.
B. 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
Case 1:26-cv-01624-KG-GJF Document 6 Filed 06/08/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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); Alfaro Herrera v. Baltazar, 2026 WL 91470, at *1 (D. Colo.) (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. Before Petitioner’s removal order becomes final, the Government is enjoined from
redetaining Petitioner 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. This Order does not affect the Government’s ability to detain
Petitioner once his removal order becomes final—at that point, his detention is governed by
the mandatory detention provision of § 1231.
3. The Government shall file a status report within ten (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-01624-KG-GJF Document 6 Filed 06/08/26 Page 3 of 3