Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GOPAL THAPA,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-00202-MIS-JMR
PAMELA 	BONDI, 	in 	her 	official 	capacity 	as
Attorney General of the United States; KRISTI
NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security; TODD LYONS,
in his official capacity as Acting Director, Bureau of
Immigration, 	Customs, 	and 	Enforcement; 	and
WARDEN, Otero County Detention Center,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Gopal Thapa’s Verified Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed January 29, 2026. Respondents Pamela Bondi,
Kristi Noem, and Todd Lyons (“Federal Respondents”),1 filed a Response on February 12, 2026,
ECF No. 6.
Counsel for Respondents acknowledges the facts of this case are “substantially similar” to
Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-CV-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 WL 74195 (D.N.M. Jan. 9, 2026). Resp. at
2, ECF No. 6. 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
1 	Respondent Warden, Otero County Detention Center did not file a response or otherwise appear in
this case. It has become standard practice in these habeas cases for the warden of the relevant detention center to either
appear and adopt the federal respondents’ arguments, see, e.g., Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem, Case No. 1:25-cv-01065-
MIS-LF, Notice of Joinder In USA Respondents’ Forthcoming Claims and Defenses, ECF No. 11 (D.N.M. Dec. 3,
2025), or not appear at all, see Francisco v. Dedos, Case No. 1:25-cv-01229-MIS-GJF, Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition at 8, ECF No. 53 (D.N.M. Jan. 20, 2026).
Case 2:26-cv-00202-MIS-JMR Document 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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). Id. at 1-2.
Ultimately, 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. 6. 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.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Gopal Thapa’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1,
is GRANTED;
2. 	Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention;
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
Case 2:26-cv-00202-MIS-JMR Document 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk;
4. 	Counsel for Federal Respondents is ORDERED to provide a copy of this order to
Counsel for Warden, Otero County Detention Center; and
4. 	The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain
jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order and to entertain
any motions for attorneys’ fees.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00202-MIS-JMR Document 7 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 3