Lopez Aguilar v. Baltasar et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 26-cv-00827-PAB
EDUARDO LOPEZ AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTASAR, 1 Warden of Detention Facility, in his official capacity, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Eduardo Lopez Aguilar Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1]. Respondents filed a response. Docket No.
8.
I. BACKGROUND 2
Petitioner is an “alleged citizen of Guatemala.” Docket No. 1 at 5, ¶ 15. In 1999,
petitioner entered the United States without inspection. Id. at 14, ¶ 46. Petitioner has
no known criminal convictions. Id. at 14-15, ¶ 49. He has a prior citation for Driving
Without a Valid Driver’s License, but it was dismissed. Id. In December 2025,
1 The proper spelling of this respondent’s name appears to be Baltazar. See,
e.g., De La Cruz v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00360-PAB, 2026 WL 439217 (D. Colo. Feb. 16,
2026); Gonzalez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00297-PAB, 2026 WL 415600 (D. Colo. Feb. 13,
2026); Portillo Martinez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00106-PAB, 2026 WL 194163 (D. Colo.
Jan. 26, 2026); Florez Marin v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03697-PAB, 2025 WL 3677019 (D.
Colo. Dec. 18, 2025).
2 The following facts are taken from the petition. Docket No. 1. Respondents
have not disputed any facts and do not provide any facts of their own. See generally
Docket No. 8.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00827-PAB Document 9 filed 03/16/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 6

2
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took petitioner into custody. Id. at14,
¶ 47. ICE charged petitioner with being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
Id., ¶ 48. Petitioner requested an immigration bond. Id. at 15, ¶ 51. On February 17,
2026, an immigration judge concluded that she lacked jurisdiction to conduct a bond
hearing. Id. Petitioner is detained at the Denver Contract Detention Facility in Aurora,
Colorado. Id., ¶ 50.
On February 27, 2026, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. Petitioner brings a claim for violation of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), alleging that respondents are not adhering to
the requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226 (Count One); a claim for violation of due
process (Count Two); and a claim for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act
(Count 3). Id. at 15-19. Petitioner asks the Court to order petitioner’s immediate
release or, in the alternative, order respondents to provide petitioner a bond hearing
pursuant to U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at 19-20.
II. ANALYSIS
The parties disagree on whether petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226 or 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Petitioner contends that his detention should be controlled
by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because § 1226(a) applies to the detention of noncitizens, like
petitioner, “who previously entered the country and have been residing in the United
States prior to being apprehended and placed in removal proceedings by
Respondents.” Docket No. 1 at 16, ¶ 54. Because he believes that § 1226 applies,
petitioner argues that respondents must provide him with a bond hearing. See id. at 20.
Respondents, however, contend that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens
like petitioner who are “present in the United States without having been admitted.”
Case No. 1:26-cv-00827-PAB Document 9 filed 03/16/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 6

3
Docket No. 8 at 2. Respondents claim that petitioner is therefore not entitled to a bond
hearing and is subject to mandatory detention. Id.
On several occasions, this Court has analyzed whether § 1225 or § 1226 applies
to petitioners who were detained when already present in the United States without
inspection and who face removal proceedings. See, e.g., Hernandez-Redondo v.
Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-PAB, 2026 WL 290989, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Armenta
v. Noem, No. 26-cv-00236-PAB, 2026 WL 274634, at *1-5 (D. Colo. Feb. 3, 2026);
Portillo Martinez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00106-PAB, 2026 WL 194163, at *2-5 (D. Colo.
Jan. 26, 2026); Garcia-Perez v. Guadian, No. 25-cv-04069-PAB, 2026 WL 89613, at *2-
4 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2026); Alfaro Orellana v. Noem, No. 25-cv-03976-PAB, 2025 WL
3706417, at *2-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 22, 2025); Florez Marin v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03697-
PAB, 2025 WL 3677019, at *1-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 2025). Each time, the Court has
ruled that the petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226. Id.
Respondents acknowledge that the Court has previously analyzed this issue,
conceding “the facts of this case are not materially distinguishable . . . for purposes of
the Court’s decision on the legal issue of whether Petitioner is subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” Docket No. 8 at 3. Respondents state that they
submit an abbreviated response “to conserve judicial and party resources and expedite
this Court’s consideration of this case, while preserving legal arguments and reserving
all of Respondent’s rights including the right to appeal.” Id. at 2. Respondents note that
a decision in this district rejecting respondents’ position has been appealed to the Tenth
Circuit. Id. at 3 (citing Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, No. 25-cv-02720-RMR, 2025 WL
2962908 (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2025). “Respondents acknowledge that until the Tenth
Case No. 1:26-cv-00827-PAB Document 9 filed 03/16/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 6

4
Circuit rules on this issue, this Court’s prior ruling on this issue would lead the Court to
reach the same result here if the Court adheres to that decision, as the facts of this case
are not materially distinguishable from the case for the purposes of the Court’s decision
on the legal issue of whether Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” Id. Respondents incorporate by reference the legal arguments
that respondents presented in Mendoza Gutierrez, the case which was appealed to the
Tenth Circuit. 3 Id.
The Court has analyzed the response that was submitted in Mendoza Gutierrez.
See Mendoza Gutierrez, No. 25-cv-02720-RMR, Docket No. 26 (D. Colo. Sept. 16,
2025). Not finding any additional relevant arguments that the Court has not already
addressed in its past orders on this issue, the Court will grant the habeas petition for the
same reasons as it did in Alfaro Orellana, which respondents acknowledge does not
materially differ from the present case. Docket No. 8 at 1-2. Because there is no
evidence that petitioner has been provided a bond hearing, his current detention
violates § 1226(a). The Court will grant the habeas petition on Count One and order
respondents to provide petitioner a bond hearing 4 within seven days of the date of this
order. 5
3 Respondents specify that they do not consent to issuance of the writ. Docket
No. 8 at 3.
4 Rather than order petitioner’s release, the Court will order respondents to
provide petitioner a bond hearing within seven days of the date of this order. See Loa
Caballero v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03120-NYW, 2025 WL 2977650, at *9 (D. Colo. Oct.
22, 2025) (“The Court finds that an immigration judge is better suited to consider
whether Petitioner poses a flight risk and a danger to the community in this instance,
where there is an insufficient record before this Court.”).
5 Because the Court will grant the habeas petition on the basis of Counts One, it
will not reach Count Two, petitioner’s due process claim, or Count Three, petitioner’s
AAP claim. See Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03094-CNS, 2025 WL 2996643, at
Case No. 1:26-cv-00827-PAB Document 9 filed 03/16/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 6

5
Petitioner’s request that he not be transferred outside the District of Colorado
while his petition is pending is moot. See Docket No. 1 at 19. The Court declines to
issue a declaration that petitioner’s detention is unlawful because this request is moot.
See id. at 20. 	A “declaratory relief claim is moot if the relief would not affect the
behavior of the defendant toward the plaintiff.” Robert v. Austin, 72 F.4th 1160, 1164
(10th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). A declaration that petitioner’s detention was unlawful
would not affect respondents’ behavior toward petitioner now that the Court has ordered
respondents to provide petitioner with a bond hearing. See Vaupel v. Ortiz, 244 F.
App’x 892, 896 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding that petitioner’s declaratory claims for relief
were moot after petitioner’s release and deportation, declining “to issue an advisory
opinion regarding the legality of [petitioner’s] detention, because a declaratory judgment
on that question would have no meaningful effect on the Department of Homeland
Security’s future conduct towards him”) (internal quotation, alteration, and citation
omitted).
As for petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees, see Docket No. 1 at 20, the Court
will not consider the request because petitioner fails to comply with the Local Rules of
the District of Colorado. A motion for attorney fees must be filed in accordance with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3 (“Unless otherwise ordered, a
motion for attorney fees shall be supported by affidavit. . . . The Motion shall include . . .
for each person for whom fees are claimed: (1) a summary of relevant qualifications and
*8 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2025) (“the Court declines to adjudicate Petitioner's due process
claim on the merits at this time because the Court grants the relief Petitioner seeks
based on the applicability of § 1226(a)”).
Case No. 1:26-cv-00827-PAB Document 9 filed 03/16/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 6

6
experience; and (2) a detailed description of the services rendered, the amount of time
spent, the hourly rate charged, and the total amount claimed.”).
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
ORDERED petitioner Eduardo Lopez Aguilar’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [Docket No. 1] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that respondents shall provide petitioner with a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of the date of this Court’s order. It is further
ORDERED that within five days of petitioner’s bond hearing, the parties shall file
a status report indicating whether the bond hearing was held and whether bond was
granted or denied.
DATED March 16, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
__________________	__ __	_ ______
Case No. 1:26-cv-00827-PAB Document 9 filed 03/16/26 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 6