Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
OMURBEK MAMATOV
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-01068-MIS-GJF
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General
of the United States; TODD M. LYONS,
Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; MARISA FLORES,
El Paso ICE Field Office Director,
Enforcement and Removal Operations; and
DORA CASTRO, Warden of Otero County
Processing Center, in their official capacities,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Omurbek Mamatov’s Verified Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed April 8, 2026. Respondents Markwayne
Mullin, Todd Blanche, Todd M. Lyons, and Marisa Flores (“Federal Respondents”),1 filed a
Response on April 24, 2026, ECF No. 6.
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 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-01068-MIS-GJF Document 6 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 3

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. 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.
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:
Case 2:26-cv-01068-MIS-GJF Document 6 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1. Petitioner Omurbek Mamatov’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF
No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention;
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. 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-01068-MIS-GJF Document 6 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 3