Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
RICARDO LORENZO HERRERA
ESCOBAR,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01530-MIS-JHR
WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center;
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA; TODD
LYONS; U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; and
MARKWAYNE MULLIN,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Ricardo Lorenzo Herrera Escobar’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed May 13, 2026. Petitioner is a
citizen of Honduras who entered the United States on April 10, 2024. ECF No. 1 at 10. He was
apprehended shortly thereafter, placed into removal proceedings, and released on five years parole.
See id. at 6, 46. On December 26, 2025, Petitioner was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Officers, and is currently detained at the Torrance County Detention Center in
Estancia, New Mexico. Pet. at 1, 6. He seeks immediate release. Id. at 7.
On May 14, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 3, which instructs
Respondents to answer the Petition and show cause why the requested relief should not be granted.
Id. The Order further instructs Respondents to “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.”
Id.
Case 1:26-cv-01530-MIS-JHR Document 6 Filed 05/29/26 Page 1 of 3

On May 28, 2026, the Federal Respondents filed a Response to the Petition.1 ECF No. 5.
Therein, counsel for Respondents acknowledges that the facts of this case are “substantially
similar” to Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-cv-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 WL 266619 (D.N.M. Feb. 2,
2026), 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. at
2-3. However, Respondents maintain that Petitioner is an applicant for admission seeking
admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Id. at 2.
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
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. 5.
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
1 The Clerk’s Office served all 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. 2. However, as has become customary in these cases, the
Warden did not respond to the Petition.
Case 1:26-cv-01530-MIS-JHR Document 6 Filed 05/29/26 Page 2 of 3

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.
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Ricardo Lorenzo
Herrera Escobar from custody/detention;
3. Respondents SHALL return all of Petitioner’s personal belongings to Petitioner;
4. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner—absent a final order of removal—
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; and
5. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01530-MIS-JHR Document 6 Filed 05/29/26 Page 3 of 3