Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
DAYANA ILIANA SERRANO MARTINEZ, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:26-cv-00037-SEB-KMB
)
SCOTT A. MAPLES, JR. Sheriff of Clark County,
Indiana,
)
)
SAM OLSON Field Office Director, ICE Chicago
Field Office,
)
)
KRISTI NOEM Secretary, United States
Department of Homeland Security,
)
)
PAM BONDI Attorney General of the United
States,
)
)
DIRECTOR U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Dayana Iliana Serrano Martinez is in the physical custody of the Clark County
Sheriff at the direction of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). Ms. Serrano
Martinez now petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking
release from custody. Dkt. 1 at 14.
For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the petition to the extent that no later
than 5:00 p.m. on February 26, 2026, Respondents must either: (1) afford Ms. Serrano Martinaz
an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and
its regulations; or (2) release Ms. Serrano Martinez from custody, under reasonable conditions of
supervision.
Case 4:26-cv-00037-SEB-KMB Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I. 	Background
Ms. Serrano Martinez is a Cuban citizen. Dkt. 10-3 at 1. On January 11, 2024, the
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") placed Ms. Serrano Martinez in removal proceedings
under § 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Dkt. 10-2 at 12. The Notice to Appear
issued that date indicates that Ms. Serrano Martinez is an "arriving alien" and charges Ms. Serrano
Martinez with being subject to removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as "an
immigrant who, at the time of application for admission, is not in possession of a . . . valid entry
document . . . , a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of
identity and nationality." Dkt. 10-2 at 12, 15. Ms. Serrano was paroled into the United States on
January 11, 2024, with an expiration date of April 18, 2025. Dkt. 10-3 at 1.
On July 25, 2025, an I-200 Warrant and a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal were
issued and served on Ms. Serrano Martinez. Dkt. 10-1 at 1, 6. Also on that date, DHS asked the
immigration court to dismiss Ms. Serrano Martinez's removal proceedings so that it could pursue
expedited removal. Dkt. 10-2 at 5–6. Ms. Serrano Martinez states that she has been detained since
this time. Dkt. 1 at 3. On August 6, 2025, the immigration court granted DHS's motion and
terminated Ms. Serrano Martinez's removal proceedings. Dkt. 1-5 at 2.
Ms. Serrano Martinez states that she was placed into the "expedited removal/credible fear
process[,] . . . underwent a credible fear interview[,] and was found to have a credible fear of return
to Cuba." Dkt. 1 at 3–4.
On December 17, 2025, DHS issued a Notice to Appear to Ms. Serrano Martinez. Dkt. 1-
4 at 2. The Notice to Appear again places Ms. Serrano Martinez in removal proceedings under
§ 240 of the INA and charges her with being subject to removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
Case 4:26-cv-00037-SEB-KMB Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
§ 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) as lacking approved identification and nationality documents. Id. at 5. The
"arriving alien" checkbox is unmarked. Id. at 2.
On February 4, 2026, an immigration judge denied Ms. Serrano Martinez's request for
custody redetermination, stating that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to hold a bond
hearing. Dkt. 1-3 at 2.
II. 	Discussion
Ms. Serrano Martinez argues that her current detention violates the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment. The Government contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction to cancel or
terminate expedited removal proceedings and that Ms. Serrano Martinez's detention is lawful.
A. 	Type of Removal Proceedings
One significant dispute between the parties is what form of removal proceedings are
pending as to Ms. Serrano Martinez. She states that she is in full removal proceedings pursuant to
§ 240 of the INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, while the Government contends that she is in
expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1225.
In support of its position, the Government cites, generally, its first exhibit. Dkt. 10 at 6
(citing dkt. 10-1). The exhibit is eleven pages long:
• 	Pages one and two are the I-200 Warrant for Arrest of Alien,
• 	Pages three through five are the I-831 Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien,
• 	Pages 6 and 7 are the I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal,
• 	Pages eight and nine are the I-867A Record of Sworn Statement in Proceedings
under Section 235(b)(1) of the Act, and
• 	Pages ten and eleven are the I-867B Jurat for Record of Sworn Statement in
Proceedings under Section 235(b)(1) of the Act.
Case 4:26-cv-00037-SEB-KMB Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Dkt. 10-1. All of these documents are dated July 25, 2025. Id. The Court finds that this is evidence
that Ms. Serrano Martinez was in expedited removal proceedings, but it does not conclusively
show that those proceedings are still pending.
Indeed, Ms. Serrano Martinez submitted with her petition a Notice to Appear—dated
December 17, 2025—which states that she is in removal proceedings under § 240 of the INA, and
not in expedited removal proceedings. Dkt. 1-4 at 2. Not only did Ms. Serrano Martinez attach this
document to her petition, but she also stated in the petition itself that she was found to have a
credible fear of returning to Cuba, so she was placed back into § 240 removal proceedings. See
dkt. 1 at 3–4. The Government did not confront this evidence or this argument in its brief.
Considering Ms. Serrano Martinez's later-dated evidence and uncontested argument, the Court
concludes that Ms. Serrano Martinez is in § 240 removal proceedings and not expedited removal
proceedings.
B. 	Jurisdiction
The Government contends this Court lacks jurisdiction to cancel or terminate expedited
removal proceedings. Because the Court has determined that Ms. Serrano Martinez is not in
expedited removal proceedings, this argument is moot.
Further, the Government's statutory argument for its position is suspect. It supports its
position with citation to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). Though § 1252(a)(2)(A)
strips the Court of jurisdiction to review orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), Ms.
Serrano Martinez is challenging her continued detention without a bond hearing and not an order
of removal—under § 1225(b)(1) or any other statute.
Similarly, § 1252(g) provides that the Court cannot hear claims arising from the Attorney
General's decision to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders. 8
Case 4:26-cv-00037-SEB-KMB Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
U.S.C. § 1252(g). Again, Ms. Serrano Martinez's petition for writ of habeas corpus is about her
detention, and not about the proceedings commenced against her, the adjudication thereof, or the
execution of a removal order, so § 1252(g) does not constrain the Court. See Jennings v. Rodriguez,
138 S. Ct. 830, 840–41 (2018) (detention claims are not barred merely because they arise in the
context of removal proceedings); Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S.
471, 482 (1999) (adopting the narrow interpretation of § 1252(g) that it "applies only to three
discrete actions that the Attorney General may take: her 'decision or action' to 'commence
proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.'").
The Court has jurisdiction to decide the merits of this case.
C. 	Lawfulness of Detention
The Government's position that Ms. Serrano Martinez's detention is lawful is erroneously
premised on her being in expedited removal proceedings. Because Ms. Serrano Martinez, a
noncitizen who was living in the interior of the United States when she was detained, is in the "full
removal" process under § 240 of the INA, her detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226. See, e.g.,
Marez Villagomez v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-89-SEB-KMB, dkt. 9 at 5–6 (S.D. Ind. Jan 27, 2026);
Tercero Argueta v. Mills, No 4:25-cv-229-SEB-KMB, dkt.12 at 10 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 9, 2025).
Section 1226(a) provides:
On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending
a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States .... [T]he Attorney
General—
(1) may continue to detain the arrested alien; and
(2) may release the alien on—
(A) bond . . . ; or
(B) conditional parole[.]
Case 4:26-cv-00037-SEB-KMB Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). An immigration officer makes the initial determination to either detain or
release the noncitizen. After that initial decision has been made, "[f]ederal regulations provide that
aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention." Jennings, 583
U.S. at 306 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1)); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(c)(8). At that hearing, the
noncitizen "may secure [her] release if [she] can convince the officer or immigration judge that
[she] poses no flight risk and no danger to the community." Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 397–
98 (2019) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19(a), 1236.1(d)); see also Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d
976, 982 (9th Cir. 2017) ("[T]he burden is on the non-citizen to 'establish to the satisfaction of the
Immigration Judge . . . that he or she does not present a danger to persons or property, is not a
threat to the national security, and does not pose a risk of flight.'") (citing In re Guerra, 24 I. & N.
Dec. 37, 38 (BIA 2006)).
Accordingly, because Ms. Serrano Martinez's detention is governed by § 1226, she is
entitled to a bond hearing under that statute but has not received one. Thus, her detention is
currently unlawful.
D. 	Scope of Relief
Ms. Serrano Martinez is entitled to habeas relief because her continued detention without
a bond hearing violates ". . . the laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The
remaining question is the remedy, which should be "appropriate to the violation." Waller v.
Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 50 (1984). Ms. Serrano Martinez requests immediate release from custody.
Dkt. 1 at 14. In her reply, Ms. Serrano Martinez also proposes the alternative relief of the Court
holding her bond hearing. Dkt. 13 at 17.
Immediate release is the customary remedy in habeas proceedings. See Dep't of Homeland
Security v. Thursaissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 107 (2020) ("Habeas has traditionally been a means to
Case 4:26-cv-00037-SEB-KMB Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
secure release from unlawful detention."); Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 698 (2008) (explaining
that "the quintessential habeas remedy" is release from custody). However, the Court finds that it
would not be in the interests of justice to order Ms. Serrano Martinez's immediate release and
instead orders Respondents to provide her an individualized bond hearing as required by § 1226(a)
and its regulations. This is because it is not Ms. Serrano Martinez's detention itself that is unlawful;
it is her detention without a bond hearing that violates the law. Thus, the remedy appropriate to
the violation is to provide her with that bond hearing.1 Furthermore, as § 1226(a) bond hearings
are held before immigration judges, it would be improper and not appropriate to the violation for
this Court to hold that hearing.
III. 	Conclusion
The Court grants with relief different than requested the petition and orders that no
later than 5:00 p.m. on February 26, 2026, Respondents must either: (1) provide Ms. Serrano
Martinez with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a) and its regulations; or (2) release Ms. Serrano Martinez from custody, under reasonable
conditions of supervision. No later than 12:00 p.m. on March 2, 2026, Respondents must file
documentation certifying that they have provided Ms. Serrano Martinez with a bond hearing,
including apprising the Court of the results of the hearing. If Respondents release Ms. Serrano
Martinez, then they must file documentation certifying her release. The clerk is directed to
enter final judgment.
SO ORDERED.
1 Ms. Serrano Martinez may also be attempting to claim entitlement to immediate release from custody
under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). See Dkt. 1 at 8; dkt. 13 at 13. The Zadvydas case considers
the constitutional boundaries of detention once a there is a final removal order. Id. at 700–01. There is no
argument or authority presented to the Court to suggest that the Zadvydas analysis applies here, where no
final order of removal is in place, so the Court finds that Zadvydas does not require a different remedy.
Date: __________________	2/24/2026
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Case 4:26-cv-00037-SEB-KMB Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Distribution:
All electronically registered counsel
Case 4:26-cv-00037-SEB-KMB Document 14 Filed 02/24/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>