Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JUAN CARLOS CENTENO CHAVEZ,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:25-cv-01246-KG-LF
GEORGE DEDOS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Juan Carlos Centeno Chavez’s Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1. The Court entered an Order directing the Government to answer
within seven days of service of the order. Doc. 2. Mr. Chavez filed a Certificate of Service on
January 5, 2026. Doc. 4. As of the date of this Order, January 20, 2026, the Government has not
filed an answer. Because Mr. Centeno Chavez’s challenge presents a legal question, the Court
declines to hold a hearing, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and grants his petition for the reasons below.
I. Background
Mr. Centeno Chavez is a 38-year-old Mexican citizen who entered the United States in 2005
without inspection or admission. Doc. 1 at 5. He lives in Fontana, California, with his partner and
four U.S.-citizen children, all of whom are minors and rely on him “to provide” and “support them.”
Id. at 6. He has no criminal history and is the Chief Executive Officer of a landscaping company.
Id.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested Mr. Centeno Chavez on June 15,
2025, in the Los Angeles area. Id. at 6. He remains detained at the Otero County Processing Center
in New Mexico. Id. at 7. On July 17, 2025, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered his release on
bond, which he immediately posted. Id. In the weeks that followed, however, ICE asserted that Mr.
Case 1:25-cv-01246-KG-LF Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Centeno Chavez was “no longer eligible for bond/release due to a pending bond appeal,” even
though ICE never filed a notice of appeal. Id. at 8.
On August 6, 2025, the IJ issued an amended custody redetermination order rescinding the
bond grant. Id. at 9. In that order, the IJ reclassified Mr. Centeno Chavez as an applicant for
admission “seeking admission” and concluded that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to
grant bond. Id. On December 10, an IJ ordered Mr. Centeno Chavez removed. Id. at 10. Mr.
Centeno Chavez’s appeal of that decision remains pending. See Doc. 6.
Mr. Centeno Chavez claims his “detention...does not accord with the INA, APA, and due
process requirements of the Fifth Amendment.” Doc. 1 at 24. He seeks immediate release, or, in
the alternative, a prompt bond hearing. Id. at 25.
II. Standard of Review
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, 533 U.S. at 687.
III. Analysis
For the reasons below, (A) 8 U.S.C. § 1226 governs Mr. Centeno Chavez’s detention, and
(B) the proper remedy is a bond hearing where the Government bears the burden of proof.
A. Section 1226 governs XX’s detention.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“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). Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to “applicant[s] for
admission” who are “seeking admission” and “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be
admitted.” The “provision mandates detention and affords no bond hearing.” Pu Sacvin v. De
Case 1:25-cv-01246-KG-LF Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *1 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.). By contrast, § 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.” Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL
3187432, at *1.
Consistent with the overwhelming majority of district courts to consider the issue and this
Court’s prior findings, the Court finds that § 1226 governs here. See Barco Mercado v. Francis,
2025 WL 3295903, at *13 (S.D.N.Y.) (collecting 362 district-court opinions nationwide and noting
that challengers prevailed in at least 350 of them, in decisions by over 160 judges across fifty
courts); see also Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432 (Gonzales, J.); Danierov v. Noem, 2026 WL 45288
(D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.); Patel v. Noem, 2026 WL 103163 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.). Section
1225(a)(1) defines an “applicant for admission” as a noncitizen “who has not been admitted or who
arrives in the United States.” In contrast, § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s detention mandate applies to
noncitizens “seeking admission” (emphasis added). Noncitizens “seeking admission” are those who
have not “effected an entry” into the United States. DHS v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140
(2020). Noncitizens “who entered the country years earlier” are not “seeking admission” and fall
under § 1226. Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3.
Under this framework, § 1226 governs Mr. Centeno Chavez’s detention. ICE arrested him
21 years after his initial entry into the United States. Doc. 1 at 5. ICE did not apprehend him at the
border, but in the Los Angeles area. Id. Section 1225’s mandatory detention provision therefore
“does not apply” because Mr. Centeno Chavez effected an entry by living in the United States for
more than two decades. Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3. He is therefore not seeking
admission and is entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226.
Case 1:25-cv-01246-KG-LF Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4

4
B. The remedy is a bond hearing where the Government bears the burden of proof.
The proper habeas remedy is a prompt bond hearing at which the Government must prove,
by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Centeno Chavez is a flight risk or danger to the
community. Although “under normal circumstances, the burden” at a § 1226 hearing “is on the
noncitizen” to show that detention is unwarranted, Mr. Centeno Chavez’s “unlawful
detention...shifts that burden to the Government.” Pu Sacvin, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3. A
noncitizen’s “strong private interest in being free from civil detention” outweighs the Government’s
“comparatively minimal burden to justify custody.” Id.
IV. Conclusion
The Court grants Mr. Centeno Chavez’s petition, Doc. 1. Because the Court decided the
petition on statutory grounds, it need not address his other claims. The Government must provide
Mr. Centeno Chavez with a bond hearing before an IJ within seven days of this Order. At that
hearing, the Government must justify Mr. Centeno Chavez’s continued detention by clear and
convincing evidence. If the Government fails to provide a bond hearing within that timeframe, it
must release Mr. Centeno Chavez.
The Court also orders the Government to file a status report within ten days of this Order
confirming that it has either provided Mr. Centeno Chavez with a bond hearing or released him.
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 1:25-cv-01246-KG-LF Document 7 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4