Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
AMIR MEDHAT GADALLA REZKALLA,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:26-cv-01363-KG-JHR
GEORGE DEDOS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Amir Medhat Gadalla Rezkalla’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, Doc. 3, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 7. Because Petitioner presents a
purely legal question, the Court declines to hold a hearing, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and grants his
petition for the reasons below.
I. Background
Petitioner, an 18-year-old native and citizen of Egypt, first entered the United States as an
unaccompanied minor in 2023. Doc. 3 at 2. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)
released him on his own recognizance and into his sister’s care. Id. DHS served him with a Notice
to Appear (“NTA”), initiating removal proceedings. See Doc. 3-1. Petitioner filed an application
for asylum, which remains pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Doc. 3 at 4.
During his release, Petitioner finished high school and now intends to enroll in college if released.
Id. at 2. He complied with all immigration conditions and has no criminal history. Id. at 3, 9.
On March 2, 2025, Petitioner was driving from Texas to California when he allegedly took a
wrong turn and crossed into Mexico. Id. at 2–3. Petitioner alleges that, “upon realizing his
mistake,” he “immediately...sought re-entry through the southwest border.” Id. He remained in
Mexico for less than an hour. Id. When Petitioner presented himself at the border, DHS redetained
Case 1:26-cv-01363-KG-JHR Document 8 Filed 05/19/26 Page 1 of 5

2
him and served him with a second Notice to Appear. Id.; Doc. 3-4 at 1. More than one year later,
he remains detained at the Torrance County Detention Facility in New Mexico and has not received
a bond hearing. Doc. 3 at 3, 10–11.
Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 39–40. He
seeks immediate release. Id. at 41. The Government opposes the petition. See Doc. 7.
II. Standard of Review
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks “release from unlawful physical confinement.”
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). Habeas corpus review is available if a noncitizen is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3); see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
III. Analysis
The Court concludes that (A) Petitioner’s detention violates the INA, (B) Petitioner’s
detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (C) release is warranted.
A. Petitioner’s detention violates the INA.
The INA establishes distinct detention regimes depending on whether a noncitizen is
“seeking admission” to the United States. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288–89 (2018).
First, 8 U.S.C. § 1225 governs noncitizens detained at a port of entry or shortly after entry, who are
treated as “[noncitizens] seeking admission into the country.” Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v.
Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020). Absent exceptions irrelevant here, § 1225 “mandates
detention and affords no bond hearing.” Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *1
(D.N.M.). This regime includes noncitizens who express a fear of persecution during expedited
removal and “shall be detained” while their credible-fear claims are adjudicated. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV).
Case 1:26-cv-01363-KG-JHR Document 8 Filed 05/19/26 Page 2 of 5

3
By contrast, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) sets forth “the default rule” for detaining noncitizens
“already in the country.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303. Section § 1226(a) authorizes the arrest and
detention of noncitizens, “on a warrant issued by the Attorney General...pending a decision on
whether [they are] to be removed.” Under federal regulations, a noncitizen detained under
§ 1226(a) is entitled to an individualized bond hearing at the “outset of detention.” Jennings, 583
U.S. at 306.
Consistent with the overwhelming majority of district courts to consider the issue, the Court
concludes that § 1226(a) governs here.1 See Barco Mercado v. Francis, 2025 WL 3295903, at *13
(S.D.N.Y.) (collecting 362 district-court opinions nationwide and noting that challengers prevailed
in at least 350 of them, in decisions by over 160 judges across 50 courts). Petitioner entered the
United States in 2023. Doc. 3 at 2. DHS released him on his own recognizance so that he can
pursue an asylum claim. See id. Petitioner later left the United States for less than an hour and
immediately sought reentry upon realizing his mistake. Id. His asylum claim remains pending. Id.
Petitioner is therefore a noncitizen detained “pending a decision on whether [he is] to be removed,”
and his detention is governed by § 1226(a). See Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303 (2018).
Moreover, this Court’s prior decisions control. The Government concedes that the material
facts here are similar to those in Patel v. Noem, 2026 WL 103163 (D.N.M.), where the Court
concluded that § 1226 governs. Doc. 7 at 2. The Court has reached the same conclusion in
numerous similar cases. See, e.g., Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3
(D.N.M.); Arroyo Lopez v. Noem, 2026 WL 776332, at *3 (D.N.M.); Aguilar v. Lyons, 2026 WL
1 There is currently a circuit split on this issue. The Second Circuit has held that individuals
like Petitioner are entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a). See Cunha v. Freden, --- F.4th ----,
2026 WL 1146044 (2d Cir. 2026). The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have reached the opposite
conclusion. See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); Avila v. Bondi, 170
F.4th 1128 (8th Cir. 2026). The Tenth Circuit has not yet addressed the question.
Case 1:26-cv-01363-KG-JHR Document 8 Filed 05/19/26 Page 3 of 5

4
851237, at *2 (D.N.M.). Because the Government offers no new basis for Petitioner’s continued
detention, Petitioner is entitled to relief.
B. Petitioner’s detention violates the Due Process Clause.
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the Government from depriving any
person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V.
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical
restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533
U.S. at 690. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles [noncitizens] to due process of
law in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993). The Government’s
power to admit or exclude aliens is no longer plenary once an alien enters the country, because the
Due Process Clause applies to “all persons.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982). Given
the Government’s conduct here, Petitioner “is entitled—as a right—to an individualized bond
hearing.” Cortez-Gonzalez v. Noem, 2025 WL 3485771, at *5 (D.N.M.). Petitioner’s continued
detention without such review “constitutes an ongoing violation of [his] right to due process.” Id.
C. The proper remedy is release.
The Court next turns to the appropriate remedy. Federal courts are authorized under § 2243
to “dispose of [a habeas petition] as law and justice require” and thus possess broad discretion to
fashion appropriate relief. Clayton v. Jones, 700 F.3d 435, 443 (10th Cir. 2012); see also Burton v.
Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting that a federal court “possesses power to grant
any form of relief necessary to satisfy the requirement of justice”) (emphasis in original). Given the
Government’s conduct here, release is warranted. See Singh v. Carnes, 2026 WL 446579, at *1
(D.N.M.) (ordering release where the Government “failed to articulate a legitimate interest in
Petitioner’s continued detention”); Palomeque-Carrion v. Bondi, 2026 WL 895567, at *2 (D.N.M.)
(same).
Case 1:26-cv-01363-KG-JHR Document 8 Filed 05/19/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Court orders that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 3, is granted. The Government shall release
Petitioner within 24 hours of this Order. The Government shall not impose any new
conditions of release beyond those in place prior to Petitioner’s detention.
2. The Government is enjoined from redetaining Petitioner under § 1226(a) absent a
predetention hearing, at which the Government must establish, by clear and convincing
evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk.2
3. The Government shall file a status report within 10 business days of this Order certifying
compliance.
4. Because the Court grants relief under the INA and the Fifth Amendment, it declines to reach
Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Please note that this document has been electronically
filed. To verify its authenticity, please refer to the
Digital File Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document. Electronically
filed documents can be found on the Court’s PACER
public access system.
2 This Order does not affect the Government’s authority to redetain Petitioner under the
mandatory detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1231 if his order of removal becomes administratively
final.
Case 1:26-cv-01363-KG-JHR Document 8 Filed 05/19/26 Page 5 of 5