Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
EDITA EMERITA PINTO HIDALGO,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-00340-MIS-JMR
PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as U.S.
Attorney General; KRISTI NOEM, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; TODD M. LYONS, in his
official capacity as Acting Director of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MARY DE
ANDA-YBARRA, in her official capacity as
Director of the El Paso Field Office, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and DORA
CASTRO, in her official capacity as Warden, Otero
County Processing Center,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Edita Emerita Pinto Hidalgo’s Verified
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed
February 4, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and
subsequently transferred to this District, ECF Nos. 8, 9. Therein, Petitioner asks the Court to, inter
alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus and “[o]rder the immediate transfer to Minnesota then humane
release of Petitioner[.]” Pet. at 22.
On February 10, 2026, the Clerk’s Office served 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-mc-00004, ECF No. 3 (D.N.M. Jan. 28, 2026). ECF No.
10.
Case 2:26-cv-00340-MIS-JMR Document 15 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 5

2
On February 10, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 11, 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 1. The Order reminds Respondents
“that this Court has already decided the issues presented by the Petition and granted the relief
Petitioner requests here.” Id. (citing Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, 2:25-cv-01113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL
92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026); Singh v. Noem, Case No. 1:25-cv-01266-MIS-KRS, 2026 WL
242249 (D.N.M. Jan. 29, 2026); Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF, 2025
WL 3688155 (D.N.M. Dec. 19, 2025), report and recommendation adopted No. 1:25-cv-01065-
MIS-LF, ECF No. 27 (D.N.M. Jan. 6, 2026); Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Duhan v. Noem, Case No. 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR (D.N.M. Feb. 2, 2026); Order Granting Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Zhao v. Castro, Case No. 2:26-cv-00079-MIS-JMR (D.N.M. Jan. 20,
2026)).
On February 24, 2026, the Federal Respondents filed a Response to the Petition. ECF No.
14. Therein, counsel for Respondents acknowledges that the facts of this case are “substantially
similar” to Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 WL 266619 (D.N.M. Feb. 2,
2026), id. at 2, and that “this Court’s decision in Duhan v. Noem, would control the result here if
the Court adheres to that decision, as the facts are not materially distinguishable for purposes of
the Court’s decision on the legal issue of which statutory provision authorizes Petitioner’s
detention[,]” id. at 3. Counsel did not distinguish this case from other cases involving the detention
of noncitizens already present in the United States—as opposed to noncitizens detained at a border
crossing or port of entry—but argued that Petitioner is an applicant for admission seeking
admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Id. at 1-2. Counsel did
not respond to Petitioner’s request that she be returned to Minnesota and humanely released.
Case 2:26-cv-00340-MIS-JMR Document 15 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 5

3
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, her continued detention without a bond hearing
violates her Fifth Amendment right to due process, and, as such, she 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 her immediate release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 14.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the Court further finds that because Petitioner was detained
unlawfully in Minnesota and transported to New Mexico, justice requires that Respondents
transport Petitioner back to Minnesota at Respondents’ expense. See also Diallo v. Baltazar, No.
1:25-CV-3548-SKC, 2026 WL 237296, at *3–4 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2026) (ordering the petitioner’s
immediate release from detention but ordering that the petitioner remain in the respondents’
“temporary custody for the sole purpose of respondents effectuating his return to Newark, New
Jersey”); Chogllo v. Warden of McCook Det. Ctr., No. 8:26-CV-54, 2026 WL 393137, at *2 (D.
Neb. Feb. 11, 2026) (ordering petitioner released and returned to Minnesota with no new
conditions); Elmer A.G.C. v. Noem, No. CV 26-763 (JRT/DJF), 2026 WL 266565, at *1-2 (D.
Minn. Feb. 2, 2026) (ordering petitioner released in Minnesota); Alexis D. A. M. v. Bondi, No. CV
26-447 (JRT/ECW), 2026 WL 194513, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2026) (ordering petitioner released
in Minnesota); Luis E. M. C. v. Bondi, No. CV 26-333 (JRT/DTS), 2026 WL 184538, at *3 (D.
Minn. Jan. 23, 2026) (ordering petitioner released in Minnesota).
Case 2:26-cv-00340-MIS-JMR Document 15 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 5

4
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 and to entertain any
motions for attorneys’ fees.
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Edita Emerita Pinto
Hidalgo from custody/detention without restraints beyond those that existed before
her unlawful detention; however, she shall remain in Respondents’ temporary
custody for the sole purpose of effectuating her transport back to Minnesota;
3. 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;
4. Within 72 hours, Respondents SHALL transport Petitioner, at their own expense,
to and release Petitioner within the State of Minnesota at a safe time and place
previously communicated to Petitioner’s Counsel and with all Petitioner’s personal
effects including but not limited to his driver’s license, passport, immigration
documents, cellular telephone, and keys;1
1 If transport and release within 72 hours is a practical impossibility, Respondents may move for an
extension.
Case 2:26-cv-00340-MIS-JMR Document 15 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 5

5
5. Counsel for Federal Respondents is ORDERED to provide a copy of this order to
Counsel for the Warden of the Otero County Detention Center forthwith;
6. Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order as soon as
practicable after Petitioner’s release and transport to Minnesota are effectuated; and
7. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order and to entertain
any motions for attorneys’ fees.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00340-MIS-JMR Document 15 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 5