Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
YULIS YOHANO AVENDANO BARAHONA,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-1285-KG-JMR
TODD LYONS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Yulis Barahona’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 6. For the reasons below, the Court denies the
petition.
I. Background
Petitioner is a national of Colombia who was arrested by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) on January 12, 2026. Doc. 1 at 9. She is currently detained at the Otero
County Processing Center in New Mexico. Id. at 2.
Petitioner received a bond hearing on July 29, 2025. Doc. 6 at 2. The immigration judge
(“IJ”) denied Petitioner’s bond request because Petitioner was found to have “not met her burden
of showing that she is not a flight risk” and “as a matter of discretion.” Doc. 1 at 115. Petitioner
challenges her continued detention and seeks release “so that [she] can continue [her]
immigration process abroad.” Id. at 7.
In its abbreviated response, the Government makes no mention of Petitioner’s prior bond
hearing and concedes that the legal issues presented here are the same as the Court’s prior ruling
in Patel v. Noem, 2026 WL 103163 (D.N.M.).
Case 2:26-cv-01285-KG-JMR Document 7 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 3

2
II. Legal Standard
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, 690 (2001).
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). Relevant here, § 1226(a) authorizes the arrest and detention, “on a warrant issued by the
Attorney General,” of noncitizens “pending a decision on whether [they are] to be removed.”
Noncitizens detained under this second detention regime are “entitled to individualized bond
hearings at the outset of detention.” Velasquez Salazar, 806 F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1239 (D.N.M.
2025).
III. Analysis
The Court denies Petitioner’s petition, Doc. 1. Petitioner received a bond hearing on
March 5, 2026. Doc. 1 at 115. At that hearing, the IJ considered the record and found that
Petitioner failed to carry her burden and denied bond. Id. That is all § 1226 requires. To the
extent that Petitioner challenges the IJ’s discretionary bond denial, that challenge is properly
directed to the BIA. The Government is incorrect to assert that the Court’s reasoning in Patel
applies here. See Doc. 6 at 1. There, the petitioner was improperly classified under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225 and never received a bond hearing. Here, however, Petitioner properly received a bond
hearing that was disregarded by the Government brief. See Doc. 1 at 115.
Case 2:26-cv-01285-KG-JMR Document 7 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IV. Conclusion
The Court denies the Petition, Doc. 1.
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.
Case 2:26-cv-01285-KG-JMR Document 7 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 3