Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GUSTAVO ALFREDO MUNOZ SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-00238-MIS-KRS
WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center; MARY
DE ANDA-YBARRA, in her official capacity as
Field Officer Director of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, El Paso Field Office, Immigrations and
Customs 	Enforcement; 	KRISTI 	NOEM, 	in 	her
official capacity as Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security; and PAMELA BONDI, in her
official capacity as Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Gustavo Alfredo Munoz Sanchez’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed February 2, 2026. Respondents
Mary De Anda-Ybarra, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi (“Federal Respondents”),1 filed a
Response on February 18, 2026, ECF No. 8.
Counsel for Respondents acknowledges the facts of this case are “substantially similar” to
Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-CV-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 WL 74195 (D.N.M. Jan. 9, 2026). Resp. at
2, ECF No. 8. Counsel did not distinguish this case from other cases involving the detention of
1 	Respondent Warden, Otero County Processing Center did not file a response or otherwise appear in
this case. It has become standard practice in these habeas cases for the warden of the relevant detention center to either
appear and adopt the federal respondents’ arguments, see, e.g., Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem, Case No. 1:25-cv-01065-
MIS-LF, Notice of Joinder In USA Respondents’ Forthcoming Claims and Defenses, ECF No. 11 (D.N.M. Dec. 3,
2025), or not appear at all, see Francisco v. Dedos, Case No. 1:25-cv-01229-MIS-GJF, Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition at 8, ECF No. 53 (D.N.M. Jan. 20, 2026).
Case 2:26-cv-00238-MIS-KRS Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 3

2
noncitizens already present in the United States—as opposed to noncitizens detained at a border
crossing or port of entry—but argued that Petitioner is an applicant for admission seeking
admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Id. at 1-2.
Ultimately, 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. 6. 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 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 and to
entertain any motions for attorneys’ fees.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Gustavo Alfredo Munoz Sanchez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. 	Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention;
3. 	Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance by 2:00 pm Mountain Time on
February 20, 2026;
Case 2:26-cv-00238-MIS-KRS Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner 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;
4. 	Counsel for Federal Respondents is ORDERED to provide a copy of this order to
Counsel for Warden, Otero County Processing Center; and
4. 	The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order and to entertain
any motions for attorneys’ fees.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00238-MIS-KRS Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 3