Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
EUILMER GUERRERO CORDOVA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 26-3340-JWL
)
SAMUEL OLSON, Director, ICE Field Office; )
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, DHS Secretary; )
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; )
TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General; )
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION )
REVIEW; and )
MISTY MACKEY, Warden, )
Midwest Regional Reception Center, )
)
Respondents. )
)
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner, acting through counsel, has filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, in which he challenges his detention by immigration officials. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court denies the petition.1
Petitioner, a native of Cuba, was paroled into the United States in May 2024.
Immigration officials took petitioner into custody on July 5, 2025. Petitioner filed an
application in immigration court for adjustment of his status, and he also filed motions
requesting that his removal proceedings be terminated or administratively closed. On
1 Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a corrected reply brief (Doc. # 7) is hereby
granted, and the Court has considered the corrected brief in ruling on the petition.
Case 5:26-cv-03340-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 5

2
December 4, 2025, that court declined to terminate the proceedings, but it administratively
closed the case, by agreement of the parties, to allow petitioner to pursue his application to
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for adjustment of status on
an expedited basis. On December 5, 2025, the immigration court denied petitioner’s
application for release on bond, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the request
because petitioner was being detained as an arriving alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
On January 8, 2026, the immigration court reconsidered its earlier ruling and granted
petitioner’s request that removal proceedings be terminated, for the reason that USCIS had
declined to expedite petitioner’s application for adjustment of status under the Cuban
Adjustment Act. The Government appealed that decision, and on July 7, 2026, the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the case for further consideration; and on
September 12, 2026, the immigration court denied the motion for termination. Petitioner’s
removal proceedings thus continue in that court.
On April 28, 2026, petitioner, acting pro se, filed a habeas petition in this Court. By
Memorandum and Order of May 21, 2026, the Court rejected the Government’s position
that petitioner could be detained under Section 1225(b)(2)(A), and it ordered that petitioner
be given a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). At a hearing on May 28, 2026, the
immigration court denied release on bond, finding that petitioner would pose a danger to
the community. Petitioner did not appeal that decision to the BIA. By Memorandum and
Order of July 6, 2026, this Court denied as moot (in light of petitioner’s bond hearing)
petitioner’s remaining habeas claim that his detention had become prolonged in violation
Case 5:26-cv-03340-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 5

3
of due process; and it rejected petitioner’s argument that he had not received a proper bond
hearing as ordered. Petitioner remains in custody in this judicial district.
On July 13, 2026, petitioner, through counsel, filed the instant habeas action. The
Government has filed a response, and petitioner has filed a reply brief, and the matter is
therefore ripe for ruling.
Petitioner claims that his detention by immigration authorities is improper. To
obtain habeas corpus relief, petitioner must demonstrate that he is “in custody in violation
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
This Court has habeas corpus jurisdiction to consider the statutory and constitutional
grounds for immigration detention that are unrelated to a final order of removal. See
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517–18 (2003).
In the petition, petitioner alleges that he is being subjected to mandatory detention
under Section 1225(b)(2)(A), and he claims that his prolonged detention violates due
process. Somewhat inexplicably, however, the petition does not acknowledge the prior
habeas action, including this Court’s ruling that petitioner may only be detained pursuant
to Section 1226(a), not Section 1225(b)(2)(A). Nor does the petition acknowledge that
petitioner received a bond hearing on the merits, as ordered by this Court, at which the
immigration court determined that petitioner’s release would present a danger to the
community (which ruling petitioner did not appeal). In the prior action, the Court noted
that, by virtue of the bond hearing, petitioner had received the relief that would have been
available to him if he established that his detention had indeed become prolonged in
violation of due process.
Case 5:26-cv-03340-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Petitioner nevertheless argues in his reply brief that his continued detention in his
particular circumstances – as he awaits a decision on his application to the USCIS – violates
due process; and that he presently seeks his release, not another bond hearing. The Court
concludes, however, that petitioner has not shown such a violation or that he is entitled to
his release. Petitioner concedes that federal law allows for removal proceedings even while
a USCIS application remains pending, and petitioner has not shown that his proceedings
do not serve the legitimate Governmental interest of securing his removal in accordance
with the law. Petitioner has been afforded process in the form of a bond hearing (and the
right to an appeal from the bond decision) and the ability to seek a new bond hearing upon
a showing of changed circumstances. Petitioner has not cited any authority to support his
release despite his pending removal proceedings and despite a determination of
dangerousness. Accordingly, the Court denies the petition.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT petitioner’s motion for
leave to file a corrected reply brief (Doc. # 7) is hereby granted, and the proposed brief is
hereby deemed filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the petition for habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby denied.
Case 5:26-cv-03340-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of October, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
/s/ John W. Lungstrum
Hon. John W. Lungstrum
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-03340-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 5