Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RAUL DURAN GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01468-MIS-GBW
TODD M. LYONS; Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and Removal Operations, El
Paso Field Office; MARKWAYNE
MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; TODD BLANCHE,
Acting U.S. Attorney General; and GEORGE
DEDOS, Torrance County Detention Center,
Respondents.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ENJOINING TRANSFER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas (“Petition”), filed by
Raul Duran Gutierrez on May 10, 2026. ECF No. 1. Petitioner is an immigration detainee at the
Torrance County Detention Center. Id. ¶ 1. Petitioner is a citizen of Boliva, id. ¶ 15, who entered
the United States without inspection in November 2022, see id. ¶ 21. Shortly after his arrival DHS
issued Petitioner a Notice to Appear. Id. ¶ 22. In October 2023 Petition filed applications for
asylum and withholding of removal, which remain pending. Id. ¶¶ 15, 23. Petitioner does not have
a final order of removal. Id. ¶ 15. Petitioner has no criminal history. Id. ¶ 24. Petitioner was
detained by ICE in Portland, Oregan, his home since 2022, on or about October 29, 2025. Id. ¶¶
21, 25.
Petitioner received a custody redetermination hearing on April 29, 2026, at which the
Case 1:26-cv-01468-MIS-GBW Document 3 Filed 05/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Immigration Judge (IJ) denied bond on jurisdictional grounds but held in the alternative that “if
jurisdiction were found to be proper, the court would grant a bond in the amount of $5,000 with
Alternatives to Detention,” and “the court would find that the Respondent was neither a danger to
the community nor a flight risk.” Id. ¶ 3. Petitioner filed a previous petition while being held in
Texas, which was denied based on Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026).
Id. ¶ 35. Petitioner bases this Petition on his “materially different procedural posture” due to (1)
the April 29, 2026 bond hearing, which was not part of the record adjudicated by the Texas court,
(2) the extended length of Petitioner’s detention, (3) and Petitioner’s custody in a new facility,
under a new custodian, and in a new district and circuit jurisdiction. Id. ¶ 36.
Petitioner seeks an order for immediate release under a $5,000 bond with Alternatives to
Detention. Id. at 21. Petitioner also asks the Court the issue an order to show cause and to enjoin
transfer. Id. at 20-21.
Having reviewed the record, the Petition may raise a colorable claim for relief. The Clerk’s
Office served Respondents with the Petition and added them as notice-recipients via CM/ECF,
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. 2 (D.N.M. Jan. 28,
2026). ECF No. 2.
Within ten (10) business days of entry of this Order, the United States Attorney’s Office
(“USAO”) shall respond to the Petition and show cause why the requested relief should not be
granted. The USAO’s answer MUST specify whether the Court has already ruled on the legal
issue(s) in this case and, if so, whether the facts are distinguishable from prior rulings. See, e.g.,
Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No. 2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13,
2026) (finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governed the petitioner’s detention and that his continued
detention violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights). Khan v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Homeland
Case 1:26-cv-01468-MIS-GBW Document 3 Filed 05/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Sec., Case No. 2:26-cv-00315-MIS-GJF, 2026 WL 776190 (D.N.M. Mar. 19, 2026) (granting
habeas relief to petitioner where the presumptively reasonable six-month-period of confinement
had expired and the respondents failed to rebut the petitioner’s showing that there was good reason
to believe that there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future).
If the federal Respondents fail to timely comply with this Order, the Court may grant the
relief requested in the Petition without further notice.
If Petitioner wishes to file a reply brief, he may do so within ten (10) days after
Respondents’ response is filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to preserve the status quo in the interim, Respondents
are ENJOINED from transferring Petitioner to any facility outside the District of New Mexico
and/or from removing him from the United States during the pendency of this habeas action, absent
a final order of removal.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01468-MIS-GBW Document 3 Filed 05/12/26 Page 3 of 3