Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RICHARD EDUARDO BELLO,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-00398-MIS-SCY
PAMELA 	BONDI, 	in 	her 	official 	capacity 	as
Attorney General of the United States; KRISTI
NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; TODD LYONS,
in his official capacity as Acting Director, Bureau of
Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement; MARISA
FLORES, in her official capacity as Director, El Paso
Field 	Office, 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement; and DORA CASTRO, in her official
capacity as Warden, Otero County Detention Center,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Richard Eduardo Bello’s Verified
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed February 12, 2026. Respondents
Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, and Marisa Flores (“Federal Respondents”),1 filed a
Response on February 20, 2026, ECF No. 5.
Counsel for Respondents acknowledges the facts of this case are “substantially similar” to
Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-CV-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20895 (D.N.M. Feb. 2,
2026), Resp. at 2, ECF No. 5, and that “this Court’s decision in Duhan v. Noem, would control the
1 	Respondent Dora Castro, Warden of Otero County Detention 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-00398-MIS-SCY Document 6 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 5

2
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. Counsel did not distinguish this case from other cases involving
the detention of 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
1-3.
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. 5.
In addition to his immediate release, Petitioner requested the Court enjoin Respondents
from “implementing any condition of release, including but not limited to ICE’s ‘Alternatives to
Detention’ measures, which include ankle monitors, body-worn GPS, telephonic tracking, or use
of the SmartLINK Mobile Application.” Pet. at 15, ECF No. 1. The Government did not respond
to Petitioner’s request to enjoin the Government from implementing any condition of release. See
generally Resp., ECF No. 5.
Case 2:26-cv-00398-MIS-SCY Document 6 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Petitioner also requested the Court “specify conditions necessary to ensure Petitioner’s safe
return home, including release:” “[w]ithin the State of Minnesota,” “[a]t a safe time and place
communicated in advance to counsel,” and “[w]ith all Petitioner’s personal property returned,
including but not limited to Petitioner’s driver’s license, immigration documents, passport, cellular
telephone, and keys.” Pet. at 15, ECF No. 1. The Government did not respond to Petitioner’s
request that the Court specify conditions of release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 5.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the Court finds that because Petitioner was detained
unlawfully in Minnesota and transported to New Mexico, justice requires Respondents transport
Petitioner back to Minnesota. See also Diallo v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-CV-3548-SKC, 2026 WL
237296, at *3–4 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2026) (ordering the petitioner’s immediate release from
detention but ordering that the petitioner remain in the respondents’ “temporary custody for the
sole purpose of respondents effectuating his return to Newark, New Jersey”); Chogllo v. Warden
of McCook Det. Ctr., No. 8:26-CV-54, 2026 WL 393137, at *2 (D. Neb. Feb. 11, 2026) (ordering
petitioner released and returned to Minnesota with no new conditions); Elmer A.G.C. v. Noem,
No. CV 26-763 (JRT/DJF), 2026 WL 266565, at *1–2 (D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2026) (ordering petitioner
released in Minnesota); Alexis D. A. M. v. Bondi, No. CV 26-447 (JRT/ECW), 2026 WL 194513,
at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2026) (ordering petitioner released in Minnesota); Luis E. M. C. v. Bondi,
No. CV 26-333 (JRT/DTS), 2026 WL 184538, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026) (ordering petitioner
released in Minnesota).
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.
Case 2:26-cv-00398-MIS-SCY Document 6 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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 Richard Eduardo Bello’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. 	Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention,
however he shall remain in temporary custody for the sole purpose of effectuating
his transport back to Minnesota;
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. 	Respondents SHALL NOT impose any new condition of release;
5. 	Within 72 hours, Respondents SHALL transport Petitioner, at their own expense,
to and release Petitioner within the State of Minnesota at a safe time and place
previously communicated to Petitioner’s Counsel and with all Petitioner’s personal
effects including but not limited to his driver’s license, passport, immigration
documents, cellular telephone, and keys;2
6. 	Counsel for Federal Respondents SHALL provide a copy of this order to Counsel
for Dora Castro, Warden of Otero County Detention Center;
7. 	Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order; and
2 	If transport and release within 72 hours is a practical impossibility, Respondents may move for an
extension.
Case 2:26-cv-00398-MIS-SCY Document 6 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 5

5
8. 	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-00398-MIS-SCY Document 6 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 5