Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RAKESH KUMAR TAYA,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:26-cv-00480-MIS-SCY
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office Director
of Enforcement and Removal Operations, ERO El
Paso Field Office; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; TODD M.
LYONS, Acting Director of the United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; PAMELA
BONDI, U.S. Attorney General; Executive Office for
Immigration Review; and MELISSA ORTIZ,
Warden of the Torrance County Detention Center,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Rakesh Kumar Taya’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 2, filed February 19, 2026. The same day, the Clerk’s
Office served Respondents with the Petition pursuant to this District’s Standing Order Regarding
Service of Process in Immigration Habeas Petitions filed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Case 1:26-
mc-00004, ECF No. 3 (D.N.M. Jan. 28, 2026). ECF No. 3.
On February 19, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 4, which
instructs that Respondents “shall respond to the Petition and SHOW CAUSE why the requested
relief should not be granted” within ten business days. Id. at 2. The Order reminds Respondents
“that this Court has already decided the issues presented by the Petition and granted the relief
Petitioner requests here.” Id. (citing Singh v. Noem, Case No. 1:25-cv-01266-MIS-KRS, 2026
WL 242249 (D.N.M. Jan. 29, 2026); Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF,
Case 1:26-cv-00480-MIS-SCY Document 8 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
2025 WL 3688155 (D.N.M. Dec. 19, 2025), report and recommendation adopted No. 1:25-cv-
01065-MIS-LF, ECF No. 27 (D.N.M. Jan. 6, 2026); Duhan v. Noem, Case No. 2:26-cv-00019-
MIS-JFR, 2026 WL 266619 (D.N.M. Feb. 2, 2026); Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, 2:25-cv-01113-MIS-
JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026); Order Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Zhao v. Castro, Case No. 2:26-cv-00079-MIS-JMR (D.N.M. Jan. 20, 2026)).
On March 4, 2026, the federal Respondents filed a Response to the Petition. ECF No. 7.
Therein, counsel for Respondents acknowledges that the facts of this case are “substantially like”
those in Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 WL 266619 (D.N.M. Feb. 2, 2026),
id. at 2, and that “this Court’s decision in Duhan v. Noem, would control the result here if the Court
adheres to that decision, as the facts are not materially distinguishable for purposes of the Court’s
decision on the legal issue of which statutory provision authorizes Petitioner’s detention[,]” id.
Counsel did not distinguish this case from other cases involving the detention of noncitizens
already present in the United States—as opposed to noncitizens detained at a border crossing or
port of entry—but argued that Petitioner is an applicant for admission seeking admission subject
to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).1 Id. at 2-3.
The Court finds that the facts of this case are materially indistinguishable from prior cases
the Undersigned Judge has decided involving habeas petitioners who were detained within the
United States, rather than at a border crossing or port of entry, and adopts the findings contained
in its Order Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No.
2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026). Briefly, the Court finds that 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, his continued detention without a bond hearing
1 The federal Respondents also argue that Petitioner is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Resp. at 3-4. The Court will decide whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of
attorneys’ fees under the EAJA if Petitioner files a separate motion for attorneys’ fees.
Case 1:26-cv-00480-MIS-SCY Document 8 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and, as such, he is entitled to habeas relief.
The Court further finds that Respondents failed to articulate a legitimate interest in Petitioner’s
continued detention and therefore orders his immediate release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 7.
The Court further orders that Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a pre-deprivation
bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk.
Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order and to entertain any
motions for attorneys’ fees.
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Rakesh Kumar
Taya from custody/detention without restraints beyond those that existed before his
unlawful detention, and are FURTHER ORDERED to return all of Petitioner’s
personal belongings to Petitioner;
3. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation hearing
before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk;
4. Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order as soon as
practicable after Petitioner’s release;
Case 1:26-cv-00480-MIS-SCY Document 8 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 4

4
5. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order and entertain any
motion for attorneys’ fees.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00480-MIS-SCY Document 8 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 4