Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GUIQIANG YE,
Petitioner,
v. 	No. 2:26-cv-0944-MIS-LF
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 Guiqiang Ye’s Verified Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed March 30, 2026. Respondents Markwayne Mullin,
Todd Blanche, Todd M. Lyons, and Mary De Anda-Ybarra, (“Federal Respondents”),1 filed a
Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) on April 13, 2026. ECF No. 6.
Respondents argue that Petitioner is in removal proceedings and subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). Id. at 6-7. Respondents also argue that Petitioner
impermissibly “attempts to apply Zadvydas [v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)] to his case by creating
1 	Respondent Warden, Otero County Processing Center, did not file a response or otherwise appear
in this case. It has become standard practice in these habeas cases for the warden of the relevant detention center to
either appear and adopt the federal respondents’ arguments, see, e.g., Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem, Case No. 1:25-cv-
01065-MIS-LF, Notice of Joinder In USA Respondents’ Forthcoming Claims and Defenses, ECF No. 11 (D.N.M.
Dec. 3, 2025), or not appear at all, see Francisco v. Dedos, Case No. 1:25-cv-01229-MIS-GJF, Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition at 8, ECF No. 53 (D.N.M. Jan. 20, 2026).
Case 2:26-cv-00944-MIS-LF Document 7 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 4

2
a legal fiction wherein the order granting Withholding from removal to China is final but alleging
that the rest of the order entered by the Immigration Judge – denying asylum, asylum for
withholding, and protection under the Convention Against Torture – is not final.” Id. at 7. (citing
Mot., Ex. 1, ECF No. 6-1).
As to their § 1231 argument, Respondents misunderstand when § 1231 applies; it does not
apply here. Under § 1231, once an alien is ordered removed, the United States has a 90-day
“removal period” to physically remove him from the United States. Johnson v. Guzman Chavez,
594 U.S. 523, 528 (2021) (citing § 1231(a)(1)(A)). Detention is mandatory during that window.
Id. (citing § 1231(a)(2)). The 90-day window starts “on the latest of three dates: (1) the date the
order of removal becomes ‘administratively final,’ (2) the date of the final order of any court that
entered a stay of removal, or (3) the date on which the alien is released from non-immigration
detention or confinement.” Id. (citing § 1231(a)(1)(B)). “Administratively final” means “once the
BIA has reviewed the order (or the time for seeking the BIA’s review has expired).” Id. at 534. As
Respondents themselves acknowledge, Petitioner has “filed an appeal of the Order of the
Immigration Judge . . . [and] the removal order has not yet become a final order.” Resp. at 7. As
the BIA has not reviewed Petitioner’s appeal, the 90-day window has not begun and Petitioner is
not subject to mandatory detention under § 1231.
As to Respondents argument that Petitioner is attempting to argue finality both ways, the
Court does not follow. Respondents cite Exhibit 1 in support, Mot. at 7, ECF No. 6, but that is the
order of the Immigration Judge and is not an argument by Petitioner, Mot., Ex. 1, ECF No. 6-1.
Petitioner mentions Zadvydas several times in his Petition, but for the general principles that §
1231 “must still be administered in compliance with the Constitution,” ECF No. 1 ¶ 7, “civil
immigration detention is constitutionally permissible only when it is reasonably related to the
Case 2:26-cv-00944-MIS-LF Document 7 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 4

3
government’s legitimate purposes of ensuring appearance at removal proceedings and protecting
the community,” id. ¶ 41, and “civil detention may not become punitive or indefinite,” id. ¶ 61.
That is not what Respondents represent in their Motion. See ECF No. 6 at 7-8. Respondents do not
make a coherent argument and the Court declines to address the applicability of Zadvydas to these
circumstances.
Ultimately, Respondents 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. § 1231(a)(2). Mot. at 6-7, ECF
No. 6.
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 Mot., ECF No. 6.
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.
Case 2:26-cv-00944-MIS-LF Document 7 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order and to entertain any
motions for attorneys’ fees.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, is DENIED;
2. 	Petitioner Guiqiang Ye’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1,
is GRANTED;
3. 	Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention;
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;
5. 	Respondents SHALL NOT impose any new condition of release;
6. 	Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order; 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-00944-MIS-LF Document 7 Filed 04/14/26 Page 4 of 4