Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
EDIN NOLBERTO HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01730-MIS-DLM
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; ACTING
DIRECTOR, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office
Director of the El Paso Field Office of Enforcement
and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; TODD BLANCHE, Attorney
General of the United States; GEORGE DEDOS,
Warden, Torrance County Detention Facility,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Edin Nolberto Hernandez Hernandez’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed May 29, 2026.
Petitioner is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States without inspection in
2012. Id. ¶ 32. On May 1, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers
apprehended Petitioner while he was working as a delivery truck driver, and later transferred him
to the Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, New Mexico, where he is currently
detained. Id. ¶ 33.
On May 29, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition requesting a writ of habeas corpus
requiring that Respondents immediately release him from ICE custody or, alternatively, provide
him a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at 15.
Case 1:26-cv-01730-MIS-DLM Document 6 Filed 06/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
On June 1, 2026, the Federal Respondents filed a Response to the Petition.1 ECF No. 5.
Therein, counsel for Respondents acknowledges that the facts of this case are “substantially
similar” to Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 WL 266619 (D.N.M. Feb. 2,
2026), and that “this Court’s decision in Duhan v. Noem, would control the result here if the Court
adheres to that decision, as the facts are not materially distinguishable for purposes of the Court’s
decision on the legal issue of which statutory provision authorizes Petitioner’s detention.” Id. at
2-3. However, Respondents maintain that Petitioner is an applicant for admission seeking
admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Id. at 2.
The Court finds that the facts of this case are materially indistinguishable from prior cases
the Undersigned Judge has decided involving habeas petitioners who were detained within the
United States, rather than at a border crossing or port of entry, and adopts the findings contained
in its Order Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No.
2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026). Briefly, the Court finds that 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, his continued detention without a bond hearing
violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and, as such, he is entitled to habeas relief. The
Court further finds that Respondents failed to articulate a legitimate interest in Petitioner’s
continued detention and therefore orders his immediate release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 5.
The Court further orders that Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a pre-deprivation bond
hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
1 The Clerk’s Office served all Respondents with the Petition pursuant to this District’s Standing
Order Regarding Service of Process in Immigration Habeas Petitions filed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Case 1:26-
mc-00004, ECF No. 3 (D.N.M. Jan. 28, 2026). ECF No. 2. However, as has become customary in these cases, the
Warden did not respond to the Petition.
Case 1:26-cv-01730-MIS-DLM Document 6 Filed 06/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk.
Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order.
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Edin Nolberto
Hernandez Hernandez from custody/detention;
3. Respondents SHALL return all of Petitioner’s personal belongings to Petitioner;
4. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner—absent a final order of removal—
without a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the Government must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk; and
5. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01730-MIS-DLM Document 6 Filed 06/05/26 Page 3 of 3