Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
THINH NGOC NGUYEN,
Petitioner,
v. 2:26-cv-00911-KG-DLM
TODD LYONS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Thinh Ngoc Nguyen’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 8. 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 Vietnam, entered the United States in July 2022 without
inspection or parole. Doc. 1 at 5–6; Doc. 8 at 2–3. United States Border Patrol encountered him
near the border where he claimed a fear of returning to Vietnam. Id. The Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”) placed Petitioner in its “Alternatives to Detention” program and released him on
his own recognizance. Id. DHS also notified Petitioner that it had initiated removal proceedings
against him. Id. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Id. He has no criminal history. Id.
In July 2025, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application and ordered him removed
to Vietnam. Id. Petitioner filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which
remains pending. See Doc. 1-2. Shortly thereafter, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
agents arrested and detained Petitioner. Doc. 1 at 4. He remains at the Otero County Processing
Center in Chaparral, New Mexico. Id.
Case 2:26-cv-00911-KG-DLM Document 9 Filed 04/14/26 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 1–2. He seeks immediate
release. Id. at 9. The Government opposes the petition. See Doc. 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
“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 2:26-cv-00911-KG-DLM Document 9 Filed 04/14/26 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 fifty courts). Petitioner entered the
United States in 2022, was released on his own recognizance, and was placed in removal
proceedings under § 1229a. See Doc. 8 at 2; Doc. 8-2 at 2. In 2025, ICE detained him in the
interior while those proceedings remained ongoing. Id. An immigration judge ordered Petitioner
removed, but that order is not administratively final because Petitioner’s appeal remains pending.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1. Therefore, Petitioner is 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). Petitioner’s continued detention without an individualized bond hearing is therefore
unlawful under the INA.
The Government argues that Petitioner remains subject to mandatory detention under
§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV). That argument fails. Section 1225(b)(1) governs noncitizens in expedited
removal and credible-fear screening proceedings. That posture no longer applies. DHS placed
Petitioner in full removal proceedings under § 1229a and permitted him to pursue his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture before an
immigration judge. See Doc. 8-2 at 1. Once DHS proceeded under § 1229a, Petitioner’s case was
no longer governed by the expedited removal framework.
1 While the Fifth Circuit holds that “[w]hile [noncitizens] remain applicants” for admission,
“they are...seeking admission,” Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 323330, at *5
(5th Cir.), the Tenth Circuit has not yet addressed the question.
Case 2:26-cv-00911-KG-DLM Document 9 Filed 04/14/26 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 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.
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); Alfaro Herrera v. Baltazar, 2026 WL 91470, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2026) (same).
Case 2:26-cv-00911-KG-DLM Document 9 Filed 04/14/26 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 absent a predetention hearing
before a neutral immigration judge under § 1226(a), at which the Government must
establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk.
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.
Case 2:26-cv-00911-KG-DLM Document 9 Filed 04/14/26 Page 5 of 5