Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ALEXANDRU CIUMAC,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 2:26-cv-00870-MIS-JMR
WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center;
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office
Director of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, El Paso Field Office,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
TODD LYONS, Acting Director,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
SECRETARY, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; and ATTORNEY
GENERAL of the United States,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART VERIFIED PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Alexandru Ciumac’s pro se Verified
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed
March 23, 2026. Therein, Petitioner requests, inter alia, an order instructing Respondents to
release him from detention and “reasonable costs and attorney’s fees[.]” Id. at 12.
On March 24, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause and Enjoining Transfer, 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 certain issues presented by the Petition and
granted the relief Petitioner requests here[,]” id. (citations omitted), and instructs that “[a]ny
Case 2:26-cv-00870-MIS-JMR Document 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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 April 7, 2026, the federal Respondents filed a Response to the Petition. ECF No. 6.
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 74195 (D.N.M. Jan. 9, 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.” Resp. at 2-3.
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 1-2.
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. 6.
The Court further orders that Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a pre-deprivation bond
Case 2:26-cv-00870-MIS-JMR Document 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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.
The Court denies Petitioner’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under the
EAJA, as “attorney fees are not available for pro se litigants under the EAJA [Equal Access to
Justice Act].” Demarest v. Manspeaker, 948 F.2d 655, 655 (10th Cir. 1991). And although
Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee for habeas petitions, see ECF No. 2, the Court will not require
Respondents to reimburse Petitioner for that payment.
Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order.
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No.
1, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART consistent with this Order;
2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Alexandru Ciumac
from custody/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
Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a
danger or flight risk;
4. Petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED;
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 2:26-cv-00870-MIS-JMR Document 7 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 3