Trejo Trejo v. Baltasar et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
District Judge S. Kato Crews
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-4026-SKC-NRN
PEDRO TREJO TREJO,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTAZAR, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner Pedro Trejo Trejo is a citizen of Mexico who is currently being
detained at the Denver Contract Detention Facility. Dkt. 1, ¶¶3, 13. Petitioner
entered the United States without inspection in 1999 and has resided here
continuously since then. Id. at ¶13.
On November 23, 2025, law enforcement in Florida stopped a vehicle, in
which Mr. Trejo Trejo was a passenger, for a moving violation. Id. at ¶14. When
the officer determined Mr. Trejo Trejo was undocumented, he was arrested and
transferred to the Baker County Detention Center in Baker County, Florida. Id. at
¶¶14, 15. Petitioner was then transferred to, and has remained at, the Denver
facility. Id. at ¶16. He is being held without bond purportedly pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2).
Case No. 1:25-cv-04026-SKC-NRN Document 10 filed 01/08/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 5

2
Mr. Trejo Trejo filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on December 16,
2025, seeking an order from this Court directing Respondents to affect his
immediate release, or in the alternative, to provide him with a bond hearing within
seven days of this Order. Dkt. 1. He contends he is subject to detention, if at all,
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. This Court ordered Respondents1 to respond to
the Petition within seven days of service and show cause why it should not be
granted. Dkt. 4. Respondents filed their Answer to the Petition on January 6, 2026.
Dkt. 9.
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 2241 of Title
28, which authorizes it to issue a writ of habeas corpus when a person is “in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody
upon the legality of that custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).
“[T]he traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Id.
Noncitizens may properly challenge the lawfulness of their detention through
habeas proceedings. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687–88 (2001).
The Court has considered the Petition, the Answer, the various attachments,
1 “Respondents” refers to Juan Baltazar, the Warden of the Denver Contract
Detention Facility; Robert Gaudian, the Director of the Denver ICE Field Office;
Kristi Noem, the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security;
Todd Lyons, the Acting Director of ICE; Pamela Bondi, the United States Attorney
General; Sirce Owen, the Acting Director for the Executive Office of Immigration
Review; and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Case No. 1:25-cv-04026-SKC-NRN Document 10 filed 01/08/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 5

3
and the governing law. Because Petitioner’s challenge is fundamentally legal in
nature, the Court declines to hold a hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the reasons
shared in the following discussion, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
ANALYSIS
In its Order to Show Cause, the Court asked Respondents to address whether
the facts and legal issues in this case differed in any material respect from those in
Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-3688-SKC-SBP, 2025 WL 3718159, at *1 (D. Colo.
Dec. 23, 2025). In Hernandez, this Court conducted a review of the governing statutes
relied on by the parties here and concluded that when 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226 are
read together, they “cover [noncitizens] presenting at arrival (under § 1225) and then
everybody else (under § 1226).” Hernandez, 2025 WL 3718159, at *6 (citing J.G.O. v.
Francis, No. 25-CV-7233 (AS), 2025 WL 3040142, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2025))
(emphasis in original). Because Mr. Hernandez had been present in the United States
for more than a decade, the Court found that Respondents were unlawfully detaining
him under § 1225, and that he was only properly detained under § 1226. Id.
In their Answer, Respondents cite as differences between this case and
Hernandez that Mr. Trejo Trejo is not seeking asylum whereas Mr. Hernandez had
filed an asylum application. Dkt. 9, p.2. And unlike Mr. Hernandez, who only sought
a bond hearing, Mr. Trejo Trejo seeks immediate release or a bond hearing. Id. The
Court, however, does not find these differences to be material on the legal question
now before the Court such that they would require it to diverge from its analysis in
Case No. 1:25-cv-04026-SKC-NRN Document 10 filed 01/08/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 5

4
Hernandez.
Respondents also encourage this Court to adopt the reasoning of those district
courts that concluded that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) does, in fact, apply to noncitizens
already present in the United States. Dkt. 9, pp.3-4. The Court has reviewed those
thoughtfully written opinions, but after thorough consideration, it respectfully
disagrees with those district courts and Respondents’ analysis. Consequently, the
Court 	adopts 	and 	incorporates 	its 	statutory 	analysis 	and 	conclusions 	from
Hernandez, supra, as though stated fully herein. Because Mr. Trejo Trejo has been in
the United States for over 25 years, he cannot lawfully be held pursuant to
§ 1225(b)(2); rather, he is only properly detained under § 1226—his current detention
under § 1225, therefore, is unlawful.2 See Hernandez, 2025 WL 3718159, at **2-7.
In his Petition, Mr. Trejo Trejo requests an order of release or, alternatively,
an order compelling a bond hearing. The Court agrees with Respondents that
§ 1226(a) does not require release but instead provides the Department of Homeland
Security with the discretion to grant a noncitizen release on bond. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Thus, the Court orders that Petitioner be given a bond hearing before an immigration
judge, who—in the first instance—“is better suited to consider whether Petitioner
poses a flight risk and a danger to the community. . . .” See also Loa Caballero v.
2 The Court grants Mr. Trejo Trejo’s Petition on statutory grounds, and therefore, it
does not address the other requested bases for relief. If, following entry of this Order,
Respondents fail to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing as required, Petitioner
may renew his due process claims.
Case No. 1:25-cv-04026-SKC-NRN Document 10 filed 01/08/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 5

5
Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03120-NYW, 2025 WL 2977650, at *9 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2025).
* 	* 	*
For the reasons shared above, Pedro Trejo Trejo’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus is GRANTED.3
IT IS ORDERED Respondents shall provide Mr. Trejo Trejo with a bond
hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within SEVEN DAYS of the date of this Court’s
order.4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondents shall file a status report within TEN
DAYS of the date of this Court’s order to certify compliance. The status report shall
specify if and when the bond hearing occurred, if bond was granted or denied, and if
bond was denied, the reasons for the denial.
DATED: 	January 8, 2026.
BY THE COURT
_____________________________
S. Kato Crews
United States District Judge
3 To the extent Petitioner’s Counsel seeks an award of attorney’s fees, he must file a
separate motion for fees that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the Local Rules of Practice for this District.
4 In so ordering, the Court makes no comment regarding whether Petitioner is
ultimately entitled to release on bond.
Case No. 1:25-cv-04026-SKC-NRN Document 10 filed 01/08/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 5