Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
HUSSEIN MOHAMED NUR,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01190-MIS-KRS
RAY CARNES, Warden of the Torrance County
Detention Center; TODD M. LYONS, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; TODD
BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General of the United
States; and MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field
Office Director of the El Paso Field Office of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Hussein Mohamed Nur’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed April 16, 2026. Petitioner is a citizen of Somalia
who fled persecution in his home country “after Al-Shabab members threatened his life and
resulted in his family member deaths, on account of religion, political opinion, membership in
PSG of Somali Government Workers.” Pet. ¶ 2. He entered the United States through the San
Ysidro West Port of Entry on September 9, 2022. Pet. ¶ 2; Notice to Appear at 1, ECF No. 1-2 at
5. He was placed into removal proceedings, issued a Notice to Appear, ECF No. 1-2 at 5, and
released under a “DT” Class of Admission. Pet. ¶¶ 17-18. Thereafter, Petitioner filed an
Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, which remains pending. Id. ¶ 18. He
has lived in the United States continuously for over three years, has significant ties with the U.S.,
Case 1:26-cv-01190-MIS-KRS Document 8 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 4

2
has no criminal record, and is in full compliance with all Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”), court, and agency regulations. Id. ¶ 1.
Nevertheless, on January 9, 2026, ICE officers arrested Petitioner while he was traveling
to meet his family in Minneapolis, Minnesota.1 Id. ¶ 19. He is currently being detained by the
Department of Homeland Security at the Torrance County Detention Center in Estancia, New
Mexico. Id. ¶¶ 12, 21.
On April 16, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition requesting a writ of habeas corpus
requiring that Respondents immediately release him from custody. Id. at 21.
On April 16, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 3, which instructs
that Respondents “shall respond to the Petition and SHOW CAUSE why the requested relief
should not be granted” within ten business days. Id. at 2. The Order reminds Respondents “that
this Court has already decided the issues presented by the Petition and granted the relief Petitioner
requests here.” Id. at 2-3 (citations omitted). As such, the Court ordered that Respondents must
“demonstrate that the facts of this case warrant a departure from the Court’s prior rulings.” Id.
On April 30, 2026, the Federal Respondents filed a Response arguing that Petitioner is an
“arriving alien” subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and therefore this Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the petition; Petitioner is not entitled to due process
beyond what is statutorily prescribed; and the Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.2 ECF No. 7. However, Respondents did not distinguish the facts of this case from
1 The Petition twice states that Petitioner was arrested on January 9, 2025. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 5, 19.
However, the Petition later states that he was arrested in January 2026. Id. ¶¶ 26, 55, 74. The Court assumes that
Petitioner was arrested on January 9, 2026, as the Government was not arresting law-abiding noncitizens with pending
asylum applications on January 9, 2025, but was arresting such individuals en masse in Minneapolis in January 2026.
2 The Clerk’s Office served all Respondents with the Petition pursuant to this District’s Standing
Order Regarding Service of Process in Immigration Habeas Petitions filed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Case 1:26-
Case 1:26-cv-01190-MIS-KRS Document 8 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 4

3
prior cases that this Court has decided on the precise issue before the Court, i.e., whether 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b) or § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention.
The Court finds that the facts of this case are materially indistinguishable from prior cases
the Undersigned Judge has decided involving habeas petitioners who were detained within the
United States, rather than at a border crossing or port of entry, and adopts the findings contained
in its Order Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No.
2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026). Briefly, the Court finds that 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, his continued detention without a bond hearing
violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and, as such, he is entitled to habeas relief. The
Court further finds that Respondents failed to articulate a legitimate interest in Petitioner’s
continued detention and therefore orders his immediate release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 7.
The Court further orders that Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a pre-deprivation bond
hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk.
Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order.
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Hussein Mohamed
Nur from custody/detention;
3. Respondents SHALL return all of Petitioner’s seized personal belongings to
Petitioner;
mc-00004, ECF No. 3 (D.N.M. Jan. 28, 2026). ECF No. 2. However, as has become customary in these cases, the
Warden did not respond to the Petition.
Case 1:26-cv-01190-MIS-KRS Document 8 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 4

4
4. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation hearing
before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk; and
5. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01190-MIS-KRS Document 8 Filed 05/01/26 Page 4 of 4