Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SHUAISHUAI ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v. 2:26-cv-01016-KG-LF
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Shuaishuai Zhang’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 8. Because Petitioner presents a purely
legal question, the Court declines to hold a hearing, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and grants his petition
for the reasons below.
I. Background
Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States in February 2025
without inspection or parole. Doc. 1 at 2. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)
apprehended him shortly after entry and placed him in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a. Doc. 1 at 8; Doc. 8-1 at 3. Petitioner filed a Form I-589 application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Id.
On January 20, 2026, an immigration judge (“IJ”) accepted Petitioner’s conditional
withdrawal of his I-589 application in exchange for an order of removal to Mexico. Id.
Petitioner’s appeal of that decisions remains pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”). Id. He is currently detained at the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New
Mexico and has not been afforded a bond hearing. Id. Petitioner asserts that his continued
Case 2:26-cv-01016-KG-LF Document 10 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 5

2
detention has exacerbated his serious physical and mental health conditions. Id. at 9. He has no
criminal record. Id.
Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)
and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Id. at 10–12. He therefore seeks a bond hearing
at which the Government must justify his detention. Id. at 12–13. The Government opposes the
petition. See Doc. 8.
II. Standard of Review
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks “release from unlawful physical
confinement.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). Habeas corpus review is
available if a noncitizen is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
III. Analysis
The Court concludes that (A) Petitioner’s detention violates the INA, (B) Petitioner’s
detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (C) release is warranted.
A. Petitioner’s detention violates the INA.
The INA establishes distinct detention regimes depending on whether a noncitizen is
“seeking admission” to the United States. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288–89
(2018). First, 8 U.S.C. § 1225 governs noncitizens who are detained at a port of entry or shortly
after entry. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 140 (2020). This includes
noncitizens deemed to be “seeking admission” into the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a), as well
as those placed in expedited removal proceedings under § 1225(b)(1). Absent exceptions
irrelevant here, § 1225 “mandates detention and affords no bond hearing.” Pu Sacvin v. De
Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *1 (D.N.M.).
Case 2:26-cv-01016-KG-LF Document 10 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 5

3
By contrast, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) sets forth “the default rule” for detaining noncitizens
“already in the country.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 303. Section § 1226(a) authorizes the arrest and
detention of noncitizens, “on a warrant issued by the Attorney General...pending a decision on
whether [they are] to be removed.” Under federal regulations, noncitizens detained under
§ 1226(a) are entitled to an individualized bond hearing at the “outset of detention.” Jennings,
583 U.S. at 306.
Section 1226(a) governs here. See Barco Mercado v. Francis, 2025 WL 3295903, at *13
(S.D.N.Y.) (collecting 362 district-court opinions nationwide and noting that challengers
prevailed in at least 350 of them, in decisions by over 160 judges across fifty courts).1 Although
Petitioner was apprehended shortly after entry, DHS placed him in full removal proceedings
under § 1229a, removing him from the § 1225 framework and placing him within § 1226’s
detention scheme. See Jennings, 583 U.S. at 306. Moreover, while an IJ has issued a removal
order, that order is not administratively final because Petitioner’s appeal remains pending before
the BIA. Doc. 1 at 8. Accordingly, Petitioner is detained pursuant to § 1226(a), and his
prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing violates the INA.
Moreover, this Court’s prior decisions control. The Government concedes that the
material facts here are materially indistinguishable from those in Patel v. Noem, 2026 WL
103163 (D.N.M.), where the Court concluded that § 1226 governs. See Doc. 8 at 2. The Court
has reached the same conclusion in numerous similar cases. See, e.g., Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-
Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3 (D.N.M.); Arroyo Lopez v. Noem, 2026 WL 776332, at *3
(D.N.M.); Aguilar v. Lyons, 2026 WL 851237, at *2 (D.N.M.). The Government acknowledges
1 While the Fifth Circuit holds that “[w]hile [noncitizens] remain applicants” for
admission, “they are...seeking admission,” Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL
323330, at *5 (5th Cir.), the Tenth Circuit has not yet addressed the question.
Case 2:26-cv-01016-KG-LF Document 10 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 5

4
that these decisions control the outcome here if followed. Doc. 8 at 2. Because the Government
offers no new basis for Petitioner’s continued detention, Petitioner is entitled to relief.
B. Petitioner’s detention violates the Due Process Clause.
The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the Government from depriving
any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V.
“Freedom from imprisonment—from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical
restraint—lies at the heart of the liberty that [the Due Process] Clause protects.” Zadvydas, 533
U.S. at 690. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles [noncitizens] to due
process of law in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993). The
Government’s power to admit or exclude aliens is no longer plenary once an alien enters the
country, because the Due Process Clause applies to “all persons.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S.
21, 32 (1982). Given that § 1226(a) is controlling here, Petitioner “is entitled—as a right—to an
individualized bond hearing.” Cortez-Gonzalez v. Noem, 2025 WL 3485771, at *5 (D.N.M.).
Petitioner’s continued detention without such review “constitutes an ongoing violation of [his]
right to due process.” Id.
C. The proper remedy is release.
The Court next turns to the appropriate remedy. Federal courts are authorized under
§ 2243 to “dispose of [a habeas petition] as law and justice require” and possess broad discretion
to fashion appropriate relief. Clayton v. Jones, 700 F.3d 435, 443 (10th Cir. 2012); see also
Burton v. Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting that a federal court “possesses
power to grant any form of relief necessary to satisfy the requirement of justice”). Given the
Government’s conduct here, release is warranted. See Singh v. Carnes, 2026 WL 446579, at *1
(D.N.M.) (ordering release where the Government “failed to articulate a legitimate interest in
Case 2:26-cv-01016-KG-LF Document 10 Filed 04/20/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Petitioner’s continued detention”); Palomeque-Carrion v. Bondi, 2026 WL 895567, at *2
(D.N.M.) (same); Alfaro Herrera v. Baltazar, 2026 WL 91470, at *1 (D. Colo.) (same).
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Court orders that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is granted.
2. The Government shall release Petitioner within 24 hours of this Order and shall not
impose any new conditions of release.
3. The Government is enjoined from redetaining Petitioner absent a predetention hearing
before a neutral immigration judge under § 1226(a), at which the Government must
establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk.
4. The Government shall file a status report within 10 business days of this Order certifying
compliance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
Case 2:26-cv-01016-KG-LF Document 10 Filed 04/20/26 Page 5 of 5