Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
FALEY GIDEY,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-00580-MIS-KRS
DORA CASTRO, in her official capacity as Warden,
Otero County Processing Center; MARY DE
ANDA-YBARRA, in her official capacity as Field
Office Director of the El Paso Field Office of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD M.
LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; KRISTI NOEM,
in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security; and PAMELA BONDI, in her
official capacity as Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Faley Gidey’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed
February 26, 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. 2.
Also on February 26, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause and Enjoining
Transfer, ECF No. 3, 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
Case 2:26-cv-00580-MIS-KRS Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Order reminds Respondents “that this Court has already decided the issues presented by the
Petition and granted the relief Petitioner requests here[,]” id. (citations omitted), and instructs that
“[a]ny response filed by Respondents must therefore demonstrate that the facts of this case warrant
a departure from the Court’s prior rulings[,]” id. at 3.
On March 5, 2026, the federal Respondents filed a Response to the Petition. ECF No. 5.
Therein, counsel for Respondents acknowledges that the facts of this case are “substantially
similar” to another case from this district finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governed the petitioner’s
detention, id. at 2 (citing Martin Ramirez v. Noem, Case No. 2:26-cv-00063-SMD-GJF, (D.N.M.
Feb. 11, 2026)), and that “this Court’s decision in Martin Ramirez 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). 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
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
Case 2:26-cv-00580-MIS-KRS Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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
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 entertain any motion
for attorneys’ fees.
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 Faley Gidey from
custody/detention without restraints beyond those that existed before his unlawful
detention;
3. Respondents SHALL RETURN to Petitioner all personal belongings seized from
Petitioner and provide him with all necessary documents sufficient to board and
travel by commercial domestic air;
4. 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;
5. Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order as soon as
practicable after Petitioner’s release;
Case 2:26-cv-00580-MIS-KRS Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
6. 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 motion for attorneys’ fees.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00580-MIS-KRS Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 4