Ramirez-Francisco v Bondi 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-00488-SKC-NRN
ALFREDO RAMÍREZ-FRANCISCO,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner Alfredo Ramírez-Francisco is a citizen of Guatemala and an asylum
applicant who is currently being detained at the Denver Contract Detention Facility.
Dkt. 1, ¶¶18, 27; Dkt. 1-7, pp.31-32. He entered the United States without inspection
on February 19, 2019, and has resided here continuously since then. Id. at ¶18. Mr.
Ramírez-Francisco 	is 	gainfully 	employed, 	in 	a 	committed relationship, 	has 	no
criminal record, and has a willing immigration sponsor. Dkt. 1-7.
On November 12, 2025, Mr. Ramírez-Francisco, a resident of Florida, was
stopped by the Florida Highway Patrol for an unspecified and uncharged traffic
violation. Dkt. 1 at ¶26. When the Florida officers discovered Mr. Ramírez-Francisco
was undocumented, they transported him to the West Palm Beach Border Patrol
Station, where he was transferred into the custody of the Department of Homeland
Case No. 1:26-cv-00488-SKC-NRN Document 9 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg
1 of 7

2
Security (DHS). Dkt. 1-6. According to DHS, Mr. Ramírez-Francisco is being detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(a). See Dkt. 8.
Mr. Ramírez-Francisco filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on February
9, 2026, seeking an order from this Court directing Respondents to affect his
immediate release. 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. 4. Respondents filed
their Answer to the Petition on February 17, 2026. Dkt. 8.
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.
Noncitizens may properly challenge the lawfulness of their detention through habeas
proceedings. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687-88 (2001).
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 Gaudian, the Director of the Denver ICE
Field Office; and Juan Baltazar, the Warden of the Denver Contract ICE Detention
Center.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00488-SKC-NRN Document 9 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg
2 of 7

3
The Court has considered the Petition, the Response, the various attachments,
and the governing law. Because Mr. Ramírez-Francisco’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. Aleman 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.
Dkt. 8, pp.2-3. 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
Case No. 1:26-cv-00488-SKC-NRN Document 9 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg
3 of 7

4
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.
Mr. Ramírez-Francisco has been in the United States for seven years, and
therefore, it cannot be said that he is seeking admission as described under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A); rather, he is only properly detained under § 1226. See Aleman
Hernandez, 2025 WL 3718159, at **2-7. To be sure, on Mr. Ramírez-Francisco’s
Notice to Appear, the immigration official checked the box stating, “You are [a
noncitizen] present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled,” rather
than the box stating Mr. Ramírez-Francisco was “an arriving [noncitizen].” Dkt. 1-5,
p.2 (emphasis added). And Mr. Ramírez-Francisco has been given an authorization
to work. Dkt. 1, ¶26. A noncitizen cannot be given a work authorization, “unless the
[noncitizen] is lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise would (without
Case No. 1:26-cv-00488-SKC-NRN Document 9 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg
4 of 7

5
regard 	to 	removal 	proceedings) 	be 	provided 	such 	authorization.” 	8 	U.S.C.A.
§ 1226(a)(3) (emphasis added). 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 v.
Crowley, No. 25 C 11180, 2025 WL 2996787, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2025). 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. 	Ramírez-Francisco’s 	continued 	detention
pursuant to § 1225 is unlawful.
REMEDY
The Court turns now to the question of relief. In this instance, the Court cannot
conclude that ordering Respondents to provide Mr. Ramírez-Francisco with a bond
hearing under § 1226 is an appropriate remedy. Not only is Petitioner’s continued
detention pursuant to § 1225 unlawful, but his original detention by DHS was also
unlawful. Under § 1226, a noncitizen may only be arrested pursuant to a “warrant
issued by the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). But in this case, perhaps
believing 	it 	had 	authorization 	to 	detain 	Mr. 	Ramírez-Francisco 	pursuant 	to
§ 1225(b)(2), Respondents simply took him into custody.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00488-SKC-NRN Document 9 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg
5 of 7

6
Respondents had an opportunity in their papers to argue in the alternative
that Mr. Ramírez-Francisco was subject to detention under § 1226 or provide some
evidence that a warrant for his arrest had been issued. But they did not. Because
Respondents have offered no lawful basis for his detention, the Court concludes Mr.
Ramírez-Francisco is entitled to immediate release. Rivero v. Mina, No. 6:26-cv-66-
RBD-NWH, 2026 WL 199319, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2026); see also Bethancourt
Soto v. Soto, ---F.Supp.3d---, 2025 WL 2976572, at *9 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2025). “Forcing
a detainee to wait for a hearing for days or weeks more in custody—under who knows
what conditions—when he is not lawfully detained in the first place would gut the
purpose of habeas review.” Rivero v. Mina, 2026 WL 199319, at *4.
* 	* 	*
For the reasons shared above, Alfredo Ramírez-Francisco’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus is GRANTED2 and the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. 	Mr. Ramírez-Francisco is not subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED
from re-detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
2. 	Respondents 	shall 	immediately 	release 	Mr. 	Ramírez-Francisco 	from
detention; however, he shall remain in Respondents’ temporary custody for
2 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-00488-SKC-NRN Document 9 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg
6 of 7

7
the sole purpose of Respondents effectuating his return to Lake Worth,
Florida.
3. 	Respondents 	SHALL 	transport 	Mr. 	Ramírez-Francisco 	back 	to 	Lake
Worth, Florida, at their own expense, within 36 hours of the date and
time of this Order.
4. 	To effectuate the purpose of this Court’s Order and allow Mr. Ramírez-
Francisco to return home, Respondents are also temporarily enjoined from
detaining Mr. Ramírez-Francisco pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 for a period
of fourteen days.
5. 	On or before Tuesday, February 24, 2026, Respondents shall confirm in
writing Petitioner’s release from custody and his return to Florida.
6. 	This Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to ensure Respondents
comply with this Order.
DATED: February 20, 2026, 10:55 AM
BY THE COURT
_____________________________
S. Kato Crews
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-00488-SKC-NRN Document 9 filed 02/20/26 USDC Colorado pg
7 of 7