Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOSE LUIS VILLA-SORI,
Petitioner,
v. 	No. 26-cv-0902-MIS-JFR
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;
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, U.S. Department
Of 	Homeland 	Security; 	and 	TODD
BLANCHE, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents,
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Jose Luis Villa-Sori’s Verified Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed March 25, 2026. Respondents Mary De
Anda-Ybarra, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, and Todd Blanche (“Federal Respondents”),1 filed
a Response on April 9, 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 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20895 (D.N.M. Feb. 2,
2026), Resp. at 2, ECF No. 6, and that “this Court’s decision in Duhan v. Noem, would control the
1 	Respondent Warden, Otero County Processing 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-00902-MIS-JFR Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 4

2
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. 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
1-3.
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.
In addition to his immediate release, Petitioner requested the Court order Respondents to
release Petitioner “after being transferred back to Minnesota.” Pet. at 7, ECF No. 1. The
Government did not respond to Petitioner’s request to order release after transfer. See generally
Resp., ECF No. 6.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the Court finds that because Petitioner was detained
unlawfully in Minnesota and transported to New Mexico, justice requires Respondents transport
Case 2:26-cv-00902-MIS-JFR Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Petitioner back to Minnesota. See also Diallo v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-CV-3548-SKC, 2026 WL
237296, at *3–4 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2026) (ordering the petitioner’s immediate release from
detention but ordering that the petitioner remain in the respondents’ “temporary custody for the
sole purpose of respondents effectuating his return to Newark, New Jersey”); Chogllo v. Warden
of McCook Det. Ctr., No. 8:26-CV-54, 2026 WL 393137, at *2 (D. Neb. Feb. 11, 2026) (ordering
petitioner released and returned to Minnesota with no new conditions); Elmer A.G.C. v. Noem,
No. CV 26-763 (JRT/DJF), 2026 WL 266565, at *1–2 (D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2026) (ordering petitioner
released in Minnesota); Alexis D. A. M. v. Bondi, No. CV 26-447 (JRT/ECW), 2026 WL 194513,
at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 26, 2026) (ordering petitioner released in Minnesota); Luis E. M. C. v. Bondi,
No. CV 26-333 (JRT/DTS), 2026 WL 184538, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2026) (ordering petitioner
released in Minnesota).
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 Jose Luis Villa-Sori’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF
No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. 	Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention,
however he shall remain in temporary custody for the sole purpose of effectuating
his transport back to Minnesota;
Case 2:26-cv-00902-MIS-JFR Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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. 	Respondents SHALL NOT impose any new condition of release;
5. 	Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order; and
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 motions for attorneys’ fees.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00902-MIS-JFR Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 Page 4 of 4