Velasquez Gonzalez v. Baltazar et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 26-cv-00297-PAB
ADRIAN VELASQUEZ GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTAZAR, in his official capacity as Warden of the Denver Contract Detention
Facility,
ROBERT HAGAN, in his official capacity as Field Office Director, Denver Field Office of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, and
PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States.
Respondents.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Adrian Velasquez Gonzalez’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1]. Respondents filed a response.
Docket No. 8. Petitioner filed a reply. Docket No. 10.
I. BACKGROUND 1
Petitioner is a noncitizen who entered the United States in December 1997
without inspection or admission. Docket No. 1 at 6, 10, ¶¶ 24, 43. On December 9,
2025, Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) officers posed as customers in need of
1 The following facts are taken from the petition. Docket No. 1. Respondents
have not disputed any facts and do not provide any facts of their own. See generally
Docket No. 8.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00297-PAB Document 11 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 5

2
a tow truck and, when petitioner arrived to provide tow services, the officers arrested
petitioner. Id. at 6-7, ¶¶ 26-27. DHS issued petitioner a Notice to Appear that charged
him as “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled”
and placed him in removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. Id. at 7, ¶ 28.
DHS also issued a Form I-200, Warrant for Arrest of Alien, authorizing arrest under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id., ¶ 29. Petitioner is being detained at the Denver Contract
Detention Facility in Aurora, Colorado. Id. at 1, ¶ 2. Petitioner has not been afforded a
bond hearing. Id. at 8, ¶ 34.
On January 26, 2026, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. Petitioner brings a claim for violation of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), alleging that respondents are not adhering to
the requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226 (Count One); and a claim for violation of
substantive due process (Count Two). Id. at 14-15. Petitioner asks the Court to order
respondents to provide petitioner a bond hearing pursuant to U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at
15.
II. ANALYSIS
The parties disagree on whether petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226 or 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Id. at 9-12; Docket No. 8 at 1-2. Petitioner contends that
his detention should be controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because § 1226(a) applies to
the detention of noncitizens, like petitioner, “who entered the United States many years
ago.” Docket No. 1 at 10, ¶ 46. Because he believes that § 1226 applies, petitioner
argues that respondents must provide him with a bond hearing. See id. at 12, ¶ 52.
Respondents, however, contend that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens
like petitioner who are “present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.”
Case No. 1:26-cv-00297-PAB Document 11 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 5

3
Docket No. 8 at 2. Respondents claim that petitioner is therefore not entitled to a bond
hearing and is subject to mandatory detention. Id.
On six occasions, this Court has analyzed whether § 1225 or § 1226 applies to
petitioners who were detained when already present in the United States without
inspection and who face removal proceedings. See Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No.
25-cv-03993-PAB, 2026 WL 290989, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Armenta v. Noem,
No. 26-cv-00236-PAB, 2026 WL 274634, at *1-5 (D. Colo. Feb. 3, 2026); Portillo
Martinez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00106-PAB, 2026 WL 194163, at *2-5 (D. Colo. Jan. 26,
2026); Garcia-Perez v. Guadian, No. 25-cv-04069-PAB, 2026 WL 89613, at *2-4 (D.
Colo. Jan. 13, 2026); Alfaro Orellana v. Noem, No. 25-cv-03976-PAB, 2025 WL
3706417, at *2-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 22, 2025); Florez Marin v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03697-
PAB, 2025 WL 3677019, at *1-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 2025). Each time, the Court has
ruled that the petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226. Id.
Respondents acknowledge that the Court has previously analyzed this issue,
conceding “the facts of this case are not materially distinguishable . . . for purposes of
the Court’s decision on the legal issue of whether Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” Docket No. 8 at 3. Respondents state that they
submit an abbreviated response “to conserve judicial and party resources and expedite
this Court’s consideration of this case, while preserving legal arguments and reserving
all of Respondent’s rights including the right to appeal.” Id. at 2. Respondents note that
a decision in this district rejecting respondents’ position has been appealed to the Tenth
Circuit. Id. at 3 (citing Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, No. 25-cv-02720-RMR, 2025 WL
2962908 (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2025). “Respondents acknowledge that until the Tenth
Case No. 1:26-cv-00297-PAB Document 11 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 5

4
Circuit rules on this issue, this Court’s prior ruling on this issue would lead the Court to
reach the same result here if the Court adheres to that decision, as the facts of this case
are not materially distinguishable from the case for the purposes of the Court’s decision
on the legal issue of whether Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” Id. Respondents incorporate by reference the legal arguments
that respondents presented in Mendoza Gutierrez, the case which was appealed to the
Tenth Circuit. 2 Id.
The Court has analyzed the response that was submitted in Mendoza Gutierrez.
See Mendoza Gutierrez, No. 25-cv-02720-RMR, Docket No. 26 (D. Colo. Sept. 16,
2025). Not finding any additional relevant arguments that the Court has not already
addressed in its past orders on this issue, the Court will grant the habeas petition for the
same reasons as it did in Alfaro Orellana, which respondents acknowledge does not
materially differ from the present case. Docket No. 8 at 1-2. Because there is no
evidence that petitioner has been provided a bond hearing, his current detention
violates § 1226(a). The Court will grant the habeas petition on Count One and order
respondents to provide petitioner a bond hearing within seven days of the date of this
order. 3
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
2 Respondents specify that they do not consent to issuance of the writ. Docket
No. 8 at 3.
3 Because the Court will grant the habeas petition on the basis of Counts One, it
will not reach Count Two, petitioner’s due process claim. See Hernandez v. Baltazar,
No. 25-cv-03094-CNS, 2025 WL 2996643, at *8 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2025) (“the Court
declines to adjudicate Petitioner's due process claim on the merits at this time because
the Court grants the relief Petitioner seeks based on the applicability of § 1226(a)”).
Case No. 1:26-cv-00297-PAB Document 11 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 5

5
ORDERED petitioner Adrian Velasquez Gonzalez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [Docket No. 1] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that respondents shall provide petitioner with a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of the date of this Court’s order. It is further
ORDERED that within five days of petitioner’s bond hearing, the parties shall file
a status report indicating whether the bond hearing was held and whether bond was
granted or denied.
DATED February 13, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
________________ 	______
Case No. 1:26-cv-00297-PAB Document 11 filed 02/13/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 5