Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ELIAS HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,
as next friend of
HUGO HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v. 	No. 2:26-cv-00974-MIS-JHR
WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center,
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, in her official
capacity as El Paso Field Office Director of
the Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as
Acting 	Director 	of 	the 	Immigration 	and
Customs Enforcement; TODD BLANCHE,
Acting Attorney General of the United States;
and 	MARKWAYNE 	MULLIN, 	Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Hugo Hernandez-Hernandez’s Verified
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed April 3, 2026 by his next friend
(and brother) Elias Hernandez-Hernandez.1 Respondents Mary De Anda-Ybarra, Todd Lyons,
Todd Blanche, and Markwayne Mullin (“Federal Respondents”),2 filed a Motion for Order
1 	The Court refers to Hugo Hernandez-Hernandez as “Petitioner.”
2 	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-00974-MIS-JHR Document 7 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 6

2
(“Motion”) on April 15, 2026. ECF No. 6. In the Motion, Respondents request the Court confirm
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is not prohibited from releasing Petitioner so that
he may depart the United States. Id. at 2.3 The Court will instead grant Petitioner’s Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus for the reasons below.
Petitioner had a hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ) on March 5, 2026. Mot. at 1,
ECF No. 6. The IJ issued an order (“Order”) denying Petitioner’s “cancellation of removal” request
and granting Petitioner’s “application for post-conclusion voluntary departure” by May 5, 2026.
Order at 2, ECF No. 6-1. The Order became final on April 5, 2026. Mot. at 1, ECF No. 6. The IJ
“warned that an ‘alternate order of removal to Mexico’ would ‘take effect immediately’ if
Petitioner did not depart the United States by May 5, 2026.” Id.; Order at 2-3, ECF No. 6-1.
The IJ ordered both that Petitioner be detained pending his departure and that Petitioner
“must post a $500.00 bond with DHS within five business days of this order.” ECF No. 6-1 at 2;
see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(3) (“An alien permitted to depart voluntarily under this subsection
shall be required to post a voluntary departure bond, in an amount necessary to ensure that the
alien will depart, to be surrendered upon proof that the alien has departed the United States within
the time specified.”). Respondents have not indicated whether Petitioner was permitted to post
bond pending his voluntary departure. See generally Motion, ECF No. 6. But, as the IJ also ordered
Petitioner remain in detention, ECF No. 6-1 at 2, Respondents indicate Petitioner has remained in
detention, see Mot. at 1-2, ECF No. 6, and Petitioner has the instant Petition pending, ECF No. 1,
it appears he was not permitted to post bond.
3 	Respondents list Elias Hernandez-Hernandez as the Petitioner and Hugo Hernandez-Hernandez as
the “next friend” in the docket title. Mot. at 1, ECF No. 1. That is not correct. Hugo Hernandez-Hernandez is in
detention and his brother, Elias Hernandez-Hernandez, filed the Petition as the next friend. ECF No. 1 at 1; see also
Order of Immigration Judge at 1, ECF No. 6-1.
Case 2:26-cv-00974-MIS-JHR Document 7 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Respondents acknowledge that although Petitioner is technically under a “‘post-conclusion
voluntary departure under INA § 240B(b) [§ 1229c(b)],’ Petitioner’s imminent departure from the
United States is not ‘voluntary’ in the traditional sense of the word.” Mot. at 2 n.1. “[A]s a practical
matter, individuals detained at the Otero County Processing Center in New Mexico (‘Otero’) who
are facing such an order to depart [are] driven from Otero the U.S.–Mexico border and returned to
Mexico.” Id.
In their Motion, Respondents represent that “the only reason Petitioner is detained is
because the 04/01/26 District Court order [ECF No. 4] prohibited transfer/removal, absent a final
order of removal.” Id. at 2 (cleaned up). If the Court had not prohibited transfer or removal in its
Order to Answer/Show Cause and Enjoining Transfer, ECF No. 4, Respondents indicate ICE would
have “driven [Petitioner] from Otero [to] the U.S.–Mexico border and returned [Petitioner] to
Mexico” on April 6, 2025, see Mot. at 2 n.1, ECF No. 6. As it stands now, ICE is detaining
Petitioner until this matter is resolved or until May 6, 2026, at which time the IJ’s “alternate order
of removal to Mexico” takes effect. See id.
The Court therefore finds Respondents’ representation that the Court’s Order, ECF No. 4,
is preventing ICE from “allowing Petitioner to depart the United States,” Mot. at 2, ECF No. 6,
inaccurate. “[A]llowing Petitioner to depart the United States” indicates Petitioner would, if
released, make his way across the United States-Mexico border on his own recognizance. See §
1229c(b)(1) (“The Attorney General may permit an alien voluntarily to depart the United States at
the alien's own expense if, at the conclusion of a proceeding under section 1229a of this title, the
immigration judge enters an order granting voluntary departure in lieu of removal . . .”). Whereas
Respondents are asking the Court to permit them to retain Petitioner in custody until they deposit
Case 2:26-cv-00974-MIS-JHR Document 7 Filed 04/16/26 Page 3 of 6

4
him at the border, thus mooting Petitioner’s request for release from detention. Mot. at 2, ECF No.
6.
Respondents have cited no authority permitting them to transform a “voluntary departure”
into a “practical matter” of driving detainees directly from Otero to the border against their will.
See generally Motion, ECF No. 6. If detainees represent that they are departing voluntarily and
they desire ICE to drive them to the border, the Court sees nothing to prevent ICE from doing so.
But where a petitioner has asked for his release on bond prior to his mandatory departure date, it
indicates to the Court that he does not wish to be driven to the border by ICE to effect his voluntary
departure, but rather wishes to be released on bond before effecting his own departure.
It appears to the Court that Petitioner is seeking release on bond prior to his mandatory
departure on May 5, 2026. See generally Pet., ECF No. 1. Taking the § 1229c statutory structure,
the IJ’s Order, and Respondents’ lack of authority for “practical” voluntary departure together, the
Court sees no reason why it should not consider the Petition as it stands: a request for a bond
hearing or immediate release before his mandatory departure on May 5, 2026.
Respondents’ Counsel did not distinguish this case from other cases this Court has decided
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 ICE be permitted to detain
Petitioner until depositing him at the border as part of his “voluntary” departure. Mot. at 1-2, ECF
No. 6.
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 2:26-cv-00974-MIS-JHR Document 7 Filed 04/16/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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 Mot.,
ECF No. 6. As Petitioner is subject to voluntary departure, he must post the voluntary departure
bond on release. See Order at 2, ECF No. 6-1; § 1229c(b)(3).
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. 	Hugo Hernandez-Hernandez’ Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No.
1 is GRANTED;
2. 	Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Hugo Hernandez-
Hernandez from detention subject to the voluntary departure bond ordered by the
Immigration Judge, $500.00;
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;
Case 2:26-cv-00974-MIS-JHR Document 7 Filed 04/16/26 Page 5 of 6

6
5. 	Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order; and
6. 	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-00974-MIS-JHR Document 7 Filed 04/16/26 Page 6 of 6