Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
LIHUI HAO,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-00929-MIS-KRS
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General
of the United States; TODD M. LYONS,
Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; MARY DE ANDA-
YBARRA, El Paso ICE Field Office
Director; and DORA CASTRO, Warden of
Otero County Processing Center, in their
official capacities,
Respondents,
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Lihui Hao’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226, APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed March 27, 2026.
On March 30, 2026, the Court issued an Amended Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 4, 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 requires Respondents to
“specify whether the Court has already ruled on the legal issue(s) in this case and, if so, whether
the facts are distinguishable from prior rulings.” Id. (citing Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No.
2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026); Khan v. Sec’y of Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., Case No. 2:26-cv-00315-MIS-GJF, 2026 WL 776190 (D.N.M. Mar. 19, 2026)).
Case 2:26-cv-00929-MIS-KRS Document 8 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
On April 13, 2026, the Federal Respondents filed a Response to the Petition. ECF No. 7.
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 74195 (D.N.M. Jan. 9, 2026),
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 2-3.
However, Respondents maintain that Petitioner is an applicant for admission seeking admission
subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Id. at 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, 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:
Case 2:26-cv-00929-MIS-KRS Document 8 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225,
1226, APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, ECF
No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Lihui Hao from
custody/detention without restraints beyond those that existed before his unlawful
detention;
3. Respondents SHALL return all of Petitioner’s personal belongings to Petitioner;
4. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner—absent a final order of removal
and concrete, imminent travel plans to remove 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 and to entertain
any motions for attorneys’ fees.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00929-MIS-KRS Document 8 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 3