Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
HRAYR HARUTYUNYAN,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-01020-MIS-GBW
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
JOEL GARCIA, El Paso ICE Field Office
Director; DORA CASTRO, Warden of Otero
County Processing Center; MARKWAYNE
MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; and TODD BLANCHE,
Acting U.S. Attorney General, in their
official capacities,
Respondents,
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 2241
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Hrayr Harutyunyan’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed April 3, 2026. The
federal Respondents filed a Response on April 17, 2026 (“Response”).1 ECF No. 5. Upon review
of the Parties’ submissions, the record, and the relevant law, the Court will GRANT the Petition.
I. Background
Petitioner is a nineteen-year-old citizen of Armenia who presented himself at the San
Ysidro Port of Entry on January 23, 2025, seeking asylum in the United States. Pet. ¶ 1. He was
processed as an arriving alien, placed into expedited removal proceedings, referred for a credible
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 2:26-cv-01020-MIS-GBW Document 7 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 4

2
fear interview, and placed in custody at a detention facility. Id. ¶¶ 1, 26. Petitioner has been in
continuous custody since the day he arrived in the United States nearly fifteen months ago. Id. ¶¶
1, 26. He is currently detained at the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico.
Id. ¶ 1.
On August 15, 2025, approximately seven months after he arrived, Petitioner finally
received his credible fear interview. Id. ¶¶ 1, 28. On September 3, 2025, Petitioner received a
positive credible-fear determination. Id. ¶ 30. The Department of Homeland Security placed him
into full removal proceedings and issued a Notice to Appear. Id.
On September 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum,
Withholding of Removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Id. On
December 8, 2025, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Petitioner inadmissible under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), denied his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT Protection, and ordered him removed to Armenia. Id. ¶ 32. On
December 23, 2025, Petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision, id. ¶ 33; that appeal remains pending,
id.
On April 3, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, arguing
that the length of his detention violates his procedural and substantive due process rights under the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. ¶¶ 59-91. He seeks release from ICE
custody. Id. at 29.
On April 6, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause and Enjoining Transfer. ECF
No. 3.
On April 17, 2026, the federal Respondents filed a Response arguing that “Petitioner is
correctly classified as an ‘applicant for admission’ under Section 1225(b)(2)(A)” and, as such, is
Case 2:26-cv-01020-MIS-GBW Document 7 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 4

3
subject to mandatory detention. ECF No. 5 at 2-3.
II. Discussion
The Court finds that this case is materially indistinguishable from its decision in
Mardanpour v. Warden, Case No. 2:26-cv-00550-MIS-LF, 2026 WL 963164, at *3-8 (D.N.M.
Apr. 9, 2026), and adopts the analysis contained therein.2 Briefly, the Court finds that Petitioner,
an “arriving alien” subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), may not be “punished”
without being accorded the substantive and procedural due process guarantees of the Fifth
Amendment, Rodriguez-Fernandez v. Wilkinson, 654 F.2d 1382, 1387 (10th Cir. 1981); under the
circumstances of this case, Petitioner’s indefinite, ongoing detention of nearly fifteen months, with
no reasonably foreseeable end in sight,3 is constitutionally excessive in relation to the
Government’s legitimate, nonpunitive purpose of facilitating removal; and, therefore, Petitioner’s
detention is punitive and a violation of his Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights, id.;
see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699-701 (2001); Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d
386, 411-13 (6th Cir. 2003).
Upon finding a person is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), a district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus and
2 As in this case, the petitioner in Mardanpour had been in detention since the day he arrived in the
U.S. in January 2025—a period of over fourteen months—had been denied asylum and withholding of removal under
the INA, and had an appeal pending with the BIA. 2026 WL 963164, at *1. The only significant factual difference
between this case and Mardanpour is that in Mardanpour an Immigration Judge had granted the petitioner’s application
for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture and, therefore, the petitioner could not be removed
to his home country of Iran. 2026 WL 963164, at *1. The Court finds this distinction to be immaterial because the
United States could still remove the petitioner in Mardanpour to a third country. See id. at *6. However, the
respondents “presented no evidence or argument that they [we]re pursuing removal to a third country[,]” resulting in
indefinite detention. See id. at *6.
3 As in Mardanpour, “Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA and, if unsuccessful there, to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals, could take years.” 2026 WL 963164, at *6. In any event, Respondents present no evidence or
argument that the end of Petitioner’s detention is reasonably foreseeable. See generally Resp., ECF No. 5.
Case 2:26-cv-01020-MIS-GBW Document 7 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 4

4
“dispose of the matter as law and justice so require[,]” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a), 2243. The “typical
remedy” for “unlawful executive detention” is release from custody. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S.
674, 693 (2008); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). The Court finds that
immediate conditional release is the appropriate remedy. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723,
779 (2008) (“[T]he habeas court must have the power to order the conditional release of an
individual unlawfully detained—though release need not be the exclusive remedy and is not the
appropriate one in every case in which the writ is granted.”).
III. Conclusion
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Hrayr Harutyunyan’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention,
subject to reasonable conditions of release, such as electronic monitoring and/or
regular check-ins;
3. Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner absent (1) evidence that
Petitioner has committed a crime or absconded in his administrative immigration
proceedings, or (2) a valid final order of removal and concrete travel plans to
effectuate removal; 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.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-01020-MIS-GBW Document 7 Filed 04/21/26 Page 4 of 4