Bracovich Bracho v. Blanche et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 26-cv-03489-PAB

KERLA BRACOVICH BRACHO,

Petitioner,

v.

TODD BLANCHE, U.S. Attorney General, in his official capacity, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Kerla Bracovich Bracho’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1]. Respondents filed a response.
Docket No. 7.
I. BACKGROUND
1

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Venezuela. Docket No. 1 at 2. On July 17,
2018, petitioner applied for admission to the United States at the Miami International
Airport Port of Entry. Id. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) determined that
petitioner was inadmissible and processed her for expedited removal pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Id. On July 18, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”) removed petitioner to Venezuela. Id. On October 22, 2021, CBP border patrol
agents apprehended petitioner at or near Yuma, Arizona shortly after she entered the
United States without authorization. Id. CBP reinstated its prior order of removal by

1
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
Case No. 1:26-cv-03489-PAB Document 8 filed 08/17/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 4

2

issuing a Form I-871, Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order, under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(5) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.8. Id. On November 2, 2021, CBP transferred
petitioner to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody to effectuate her
removal from the United States. Id. On November 3, 2021, ICE released petitioner
from custody on an order of release on personal recognizance. Id. On June 8, 2025,
ICE officers arrested and detained petitioner. Id. She is currently detained at the
Denver Contract Detention Facility. Id. Both before and after her detention, petitioner
has been pursuing fear-based relief from removal. Id. at 3.
On May 8, 2026, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
Bracho v. Blanche, No. 26-cv-01992-PAB, 2026 WL 1599966 (D. Colo. June 4, 2026).
See Docket No. 1 at 3. The Court denied the petition without prejudice, noting that,
because petitioner has been detained since June 8, 2025, she might have a viable
claim pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). Bracho, 2026 WL
1599966, at *2. However, petitioner did not bring a Zadvydas claim in that petition.
Petitioner contends that she has “now refiled the present Habeas petition arguing
Petitioner’s continued detention is unlawful under Zadvydas v. Davis.” Docket No. 1 at
3.
In their response, respondents “maintain that Petitioner’s detention is lawful and
do not concede that it is unlawful. But for purposes of this specific case, Respondents
are not submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition.” Docket No. 7 at 1-2.
II. ANALYSIS
In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that a noncitizen ordered removed and
detained under § 1231(a)(6) cannot be indefinitely detained without violating the Fifth
Case No. 1:26-cv-03489-PAB Document 8 filed 08/17/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 4

3

Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.
Zadvydas held that a six-month period of post-removal detention is presumptively
reasonable, but, “[a]fter this 6-month period, once the alien provides good reason to
believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.”
Id. This standard does not require petitioner to “show the absence of any prospect of
removal – no matter how unlikely or unforeseeable.” Id. at 702. Rather, he simply must
show that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Id. at
701.
Petitioner’s detention has exceeded the presumptively reasonable six-month
period. See Docket No. 1 at 2. Given that petitioner has been detained for over a year
without removal and respondents have provided no information regarding their removal
efforts, the Court finds that petitioner has satisfied her burden under Zadvydas. See
Ahrach v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03195-PAB, 2025 WL 3227529, at *4 (D. Colo. Nov. 19,
2025) (finding that petitioner met her burden where petitioner had been detained for
over six months and the only efforts respondents had made to remove petitioner was to
solicit acceptances from other countries); Vargas v. Noem, 2025 WL 2770679, at *2 (D.
Kan. Sept. 29, 2025) (“The Court concludes that petitioner has met his burden to show
that there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Petitioner has now been detained for nearly nine months since his removal order
became final on January 4, 2025, well beyond the six-month period sanctioned by the
Supreme Court in Zadvydas, and officials have still not been able to remove him or
even to schedule his removal.”). By not submitting a brief in opposition to the petition,
Case No. 1:26-cv-03489-PAB Document 8 filed 08/17/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 4

4

respondents also fail to rebut petitioner’s showing as to the likelihood of her removal.
Accordingly, the Court will grant the petition.
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Kerla Bracovich Bracho’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
[Docket No. 1] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that respondents shall release petitioner Kerla Bracovich Bracho
within 48 hours. It is further
ORDERED that the parties shall file a status report within 4 days of petitioner’s
release.
DATED August 17, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

Case No. 1:26-cv-03489-PAB Document 8 filed 08/17/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 4