Cahuec-Canahui v. Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
District Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 26-cv-03729-PAB
JOSE LUIS CAHUEC-CANAHUI,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Denver Contract Detention Facility,
Respondent.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Jose Luis Cahuec-Canahui’s
pro se amended application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Docket No. 4. Respondent filed a Response. Docket No. 9.
I. 	BACKGROUND 1
Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who has resided in the United States for
approximately nineteen years. Docket No. 4 at 5. On January 10, 2026, petitioner
was detained by ICE on his way to work and has remained continuously in civil
immigration custody since that date. Id. He is currently detained at an immigration
facility in Aurora, Colorado. Id.
On January 13, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey ordered the government to provide petitioner with bond hearing within two
1 The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
Case No. 1:26-cv-03729-PAB Document 12 filed 10/14/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 5

2
days. Id.; see also Cahuec-Canahui v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-00364-MEF (D.N.J. Jan. 13,
2026). The hearing took place on January 15, 2026, and bond was denied. Id.
On February 23, 2026, an immigration judge ordered petitioner removed and
petitioner submitted a timely appeal, which remains pending. Id.
Petitioner commenced this action on August 14, 2026. Docket No. 1. On
August 18, 2026, the Court ordered petitioner to submit an amended petition. Docket
No. 3. Petitioner filed an amended application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 on September 10, 2026. Docket No. 4. He asserts one claim titled:
“Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process: Continued Detention Under 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a) Without a Constitutionally Adequate Current Custody Determination.” Id. at
5. As relief, he seeks “release from ICE custody under reasonable conditions of
supervision,” or alternatively, “a prompt, constitutionally adequate individualized bond
redetermination hearing, at which the Government bears the burden of proving that
Applicant’s continued detention is justified.” Id. at 4.
On September 28, 2026, respondent filed a response that did not address the
merits of petitioner’s claim. Instead, respondent stated:
For purposes of this specific case, Respondent is not submitting a brief in
opposition to the Petition detailing the facts and circumstances of this case.
Respondent recognizes that the Court may then decide to grant the Petition
and award appropriate relief. Respondent submits that if the Court does
grant the Petition, the appropriate relief would be an Order directing that
Respondent, within seven days of this Court’s Order, provide Petitioner with
a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or else release Petitioner.
Docket No. 9 at 1-2.
II. 	ANALYSIS
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently has held that. “[b]ased on the
statutory text and context, we conclude that § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s application is limited to
Case No. 1:26-cv-03729-PAB Document 12 filed 10/14/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 5

3
the border.” Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1240 (10th Cir. 2026). In
Santillan Quiroz, the Tenth Circuit held that the petitioner, who had lived in the United
States for two decades, was being detained pursuant to § 1226(a) and was entitled to a
bond hearing. Id. at 1251 n.13. Thus, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case and
directed the district court to “order the Government to, within seven days of such order,
either provide [the petitioner] with a bond hearing or else release him.” Id.
Like the petitioner in Santillan Quiroz, the Court concludes that petitioner’s
detention properly falls under § 1226(a). Respondent does not dispute that petitioner is
detained pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or that petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing
under § 1226(a). See generally Docket No. 9. However, the amended petition asserts
that petitioner was already given a bond hearing on January 15, 2026, and that bond
was denied. Docket No. 4 at 5.
Petitioner argues that the January 15 hearing “necessarily addressed [his]
custody circumstances as they existed after only five days of detention. It occurred
before the immigration judge ruled on the merits of the removal case, before [petitioner]
appealed, and before the BIA briefing period was completed.” Id. at 5. He further
contends that he has “not received a new individualized custody determination since
January 15, 2026,” and that “[m]aterial circumstances have developed since the
January hearing: a removal decision was entered; [petitioner] timely appealed, the BIA
received [petitioner’s] merits brief; the DHS briefing period expired; the appeal remained
pending as of August 10, [2026]; and [petitioner] has experienced many additional
months of detention.” Id. at 6. He concludes that he has “received no new notice
identifying the evidence on which the Government would rely to justify his continued
detention under present circumstances”; that he “has had no custody hearing at which
Case No. 1:26-cv-03729-PAB Document 12 filed 10/14/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 5

4
he could present evidence or testimony about the later removal decision, the pending
BIA appeal, the completed briefing, the additional duration of detention, or any updated
release plan”; that “[n]o neutral decisionmaker has issued a reasoned, individualized
custody decision addressing those later facts or explaining why continued detention
remains necessary today”; that “[n]o current custody decision has considered
[petitioner’s] present ability to pay a monetary bond or whether less restrictive
conditions . . . would reasonably address any identified risk of flight or danger.” Id. In
short, petitioner states that he “does not ask this Court to review or set aside the
immigration judge’s discretionary January 15 bond decision, to reweigh evidence
presented at that hearing, or to set a bond amount. [Petitioner] challenges the
constitutional adequacy of the process supporting his continued detention now, after
prolonged detention and material later developments.” Id.
Petitioner, however, does not provide this Court with any authority to support his
contention that, having had one bond hearing that he apparently did not appeal, he is
entitled to a second bond hearing based on materially changed circumstances.
Because petitioner does not identify any inadequacy in the process he received, the
Court will deny the amended petition.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the amended application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Docket No. 4] is DENIED without prejudice. It is further
Case No. 1:26-cv-03729-PAB Document 12 filed 10/14/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 5

5
ORDERED that this case is closed.
DATED October 14, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
__________________	__ ___
Case No. 1:26-cv-03729-PAB Document 12 filed 10/14/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 5