Marrero Yera v. Baltazar et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
District Judge S. Kato Crews
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00476-SKC-SBP
JOSE MARRERO YERA,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTAZAR, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner Jose Marrero Yera, an asylum applicant, entered the United States
without inspection in January 2022 and has resided here continuously since then.
Dkt. 1, ¶1. He is the father of a ten-month-old United States citizen, maintains stable
employment, is the caretaker for his family, and has no criminal history. Id. at ¶39.
He is presently detained at the Denver Contract Detention Facility in Aurora,
Colorado. Id. at p.2.
After he entered the United States in 2022, Mr. Marrero Yera was arrested
by Immigration and Customs Enforcement but was then released on his own
recognizance. Id. at ¶1, Dkt. 1-3, p.2. On December 17, 2025, the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) issued a “Warrant for Arrest of [Noncitizen],” which was
purportedly served on Petitioner the same day. Dkt. 1-4, p.2. According to DHS,
Case No. 1:26-cv-00476-SKC-SBP Document 17 filed 02/19/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 7

2
Mr. Marrero Yera is being detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(a). See Dkt.
15; Dkt. 1-5.
Mr. Marrero Yera filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on February 6,
2026, seeking an order from this Court directing Respondents to affect his
immediate release, or in the alternative, to provide him with a bond hearing. Dkt.
1. He contends he is subject to detention, if at all, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Id. This Court ordered Respondents1 to respond to the Petition within five days of
service and show cause why it should not be granted pursuant to this Court’s
previous analysis in Aleman Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-3688-SKC-SBP,
2025 WL 3718159, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 23, 2025). Dkt. 11. Respondents filed their
Response to the Petition on February 17, 2026. Dkt. 15. Petitioner filed a Reply on
February 18, 2026. Dkt. 16.
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 2241 of Title
28, which authorizes it to issue a writ of habeas corpus when a person is “in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody
upon the legality of that custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).
“[T]he traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Id.
1 “Respondents” refers to Pamela Bondi, the United States Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; Todd
Lyons, the Acting Director of ICE; Robert Hagan, the Director of the Denver ICE
Field Office; and Juan Baltazar, the Warden of the Denver ICE Detention Center.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00476-SKC-SBP Document 17 filed 02/19/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 7

3
Noncitizens may properly challenge the lawfulness of their detention through
habeas proceedings. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687–88 (2001).
The Court has considered the Petition, the Response, the Reply, the various
attachments, and the governing law. Because Mr. Marrero Yera’s challenge is
fundamentally legal in nature, the Court declines to hold a hearing. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2243. For the reasons shared in the following discussion, the Court GRANTS the
Petition.
ANALYSIS
This matter presents a similar factual background and procedural posture to
another of the Court’s recent cases, Aleman Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-3688-
SKC-SBP, 2025 WL 3718159, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 23, 2025). In Aleman Hernandez,
this Court conducted a review of the governing statutes relied on by the parties here
and concluded that when 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226 are read together, they “cover
[noncitizens] presenting at arrival (under § 1225) and then everybody else (under
§ 1226).” Aleman Hernandez, 2025 WL 3718159, at *6 (citing J.G.O. v. Francis, No.
25-CV-7233 (AS), 2025 WL 3040142, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2025)) (emphasis in
original). Because Mr. Hernandez had been present in the United States for more
than a decade, the Court found that Respondents were unlawfully detaining him
under § 1225, and that he was only properly detained under § 1226. Id.
In much appreciated candor, Respondents acknowledge that the facts and legal
issues in this case are materially indistinguishable from those in Aleman Hernandez.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00476-SKC-SBP Document 17 filed 02/19/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 7

4
Dkt. 15, pp.1-2. Although they disagree with the Court’s previous conclusions, they
recognize that the Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit have not yet offered guidance
on these legal questions. Id. Respondents also cite the Fifth Circuit’s recent order in
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 323330, at *5–10 (5th. Cir. Feb. 6,
2026), wherein that court agreed with Respondents’ interpretation of the relevant
statutes and they have attached their response brief in Guiterrez v. Baltazar, 25-cv-
2720-RMR, which explains their positions on these matters. Dkt. 15-1.
The Court has reviewed the Fifth Circuit’s opinion but is instead persuaded
by District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney’s analysis in Singh v. Baltazar, --- F.Supp.3d
---, 2026 WL 352870, at **3-6 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2026), wherein she surgically
dismantles the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning. Like Judge Sweeney, this Court is not
persuaded 	that 	its 	own 	analysis 	in 	Aleman 	Hernandez 	must 	be 	upended.
Consequently, 	the 	Court 	adopts 	and 	incorporates 	its 	statutory 	analysis 	and
conclusions from Aleman Hernandez, supra, as though stated fully herein.
In this case, the Government has consistently treated Mr. Marrero Yera as
detained under § 1226(a) since he entered the United States, and settled law
precludes the Government from switching gears to argue he is now somehow subject
to § 1225(b)(2). Patel v. Crowley, No. 25 C 11180, 2025 WL 2996787, at *5 (N.D. Ill.
Oct. 24, 2025). To begin, after Mr. Marrero Yera was arrested in January 2022, DHS
then released him on his own recognizance.2 Dkt. 1-3. “Courts have recognized that
2 That he was released on his own recognizance reflects “a determination by the
Case No. 1:26-cv-00476-SKC-SBP Document 17 filed 02/19/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 7

5
release on recognizance constitutes a form of conditional parole from detention
housed 	in 	the 	provisions 	of 	§ 1226’s 	discretionary 	detention.” 	Patel, 	2025 	WL
2996787, at *5. See also J.U. v. Maldonado, No. 25-CV-04836 (OEM), 2025 WL
2772765, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2025) (collecting cases); Martinez v. Hyde, 792 F.
Supp. 3d 211, 215 (D. Mass. 2025) (Respondents’ contrary theory of the procedural
history cannot make sense of Petitioner’s release on recognizance because individuals
detained following examination under section 1225 can only be paroled into the
United States “for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.”).
In addition, DHS issued an administrative warrant for Mr. Marrero Yera’s
arrest. Dkt. 1-4. This is consistent with § 1226(a), because that statute requires the
issuance of a warrant as a precursor to detention under § 1226(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
(“On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, [a noncitizen] may be arrested and
detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United
States.”) (emphasis added); see also Chogllo Chafla v. Scott, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No.
2:25-cv-00437-SDN, 2025 WL 2688541, at *11 (D. Me. Sept. 21, 2025), appeal filed
(Nov. 6, 2025) (“Issuance of a warrant is a necessary condition to justify discretionary
detention under section 1226(a).”). To the contrary, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) does not
require a warrant.
government that [Mr. Marrero Yera] is not a danger to the community or a flight
risk.” Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25-CV-06924-EMC (EMC), 2025 WL 2637503, at
*7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2025). There is no suggestion that Mr. Marrero Yera has
committed any crimes since entering the country.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00476-SKC-SBP Document 17 filed 02/19/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 7

6
Because “the Government has affirmatively decided to treat [Petitioner] as
being detained under Section 1226(a)[,] it cannot now be heard to change its position
to claim that he is detained under Section 1225(b).” Patel, 2025 WL 2996787, at *6.
See also Kennedy v. Kijakazi, No. 22-2258, 2023 WL 1990303, at *3 (7th Cir. Feb. 14,
2023), quoting DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 24 (2020) (the “[SEC
v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 95 (1943)] doctrine requires an agency to ‘defend its
actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted’ in the interest of promoting agency
accountability, instilling confidence in agency decisions, and maintaining an orderly
process of review.”). Therefore, Mr. Marrero Yera’s continued detention pursuant to
§ 1225 is unlawful.
In his prayer for relief, Mr. Marrero Yera requests an order of release or,
alternatively, an order compelling a bond hearing. The Court notes, however, that
§ 1226(a) does not require release but instead provides the Department of Homeland
Security with the discretion to grant a noncitizen release on bond. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Thus, the Court orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing before an immigration
judge, who—in the first instance—“is better suited to consider whether Petitioner
poses a flight risk and a danger to the community. . . .” Loa Caballero v. Baltazar, No.
25-cv-03120-NYW, 2025 WL 2977650, at *9 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2025).
* 	* 	*
For the reasons shared above, Jose Marrero Yera’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Case No. 1:26-cv-00476-SKC-SBP Document 17 filed 02/19/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 7

7
Corpus is GRANTED3 and the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Mr. Marrero Yera is not subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED
from detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
2. 	Respondents shall provide Mr. Marrero Yera with a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) within SEVEN DAYS of the date of this Court’s order.
3. 	Respondents shall file a status report within TEN DAYS of the date of this
Court’s order to certify compliance. The status report shall include if and
when the bond hearing occurred, if bond was granted or denied, and if bond
was denied, the reasons for the denial.
DATED: 	February 19, 2026.
BY THE COURT
_____________________________
S. Kato Crews
United States District Judge
3 To the extent Petitioner’s Counsel seeks an award of attorney’s fees, he must file a
separate motion for fees that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Local Rules of Practice for this District.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00476-SKC-SBP Document 17 filed 02/19/26 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 7