Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANDERSON CABALLERO,
Petitioner,
v.
RAUL MALDONADO, Warden,
Metropolitan Detention Center; TODD
LYONS, Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
and PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
26-CV-01312 (NRM)
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Petitioner Anderson Caballero is a nineteen-year-old male who entered the
United States on October 28, 2024 as an unaccompanied minor. On January 28, 2026,
Petitioner was detained in New York by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) while in the car with his father. 	He was afterwards transferred to the
Metropolitan 	Detention 	Center 	(“MDC”) 	in 	Brooklyn, 	New 	York, 	where 	he 	is
presently detained.
On March 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the
“Petition”), ECF No. 1, alleging that his detention violates his constitutional and
statutory rights, and seeking entry of an order directing his immediate release from
detention.
The case was assigned to the undersigned on March 6, 2026, at which time the
Court issued an Order, ECF No. 6, directing Respondents to file, by 3:00PM on March
Case 1:26-cv-01312-NRM Document 8 Filed 03/07/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
7, 2026, a submission (1) providing certain information about Petitioner and his
circumstances, (2) indicating the statutory provision under which they assert the
authority to detain Petitioner, and (3) addressing whether there is any basis to
distinguish the asserted grounds for detention from the Court’s decision in Hyppolite
v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4304 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025), or from
the Court’s decision in H.A.C.F. v. Francis, No. 26-CV-00872 (NRM), 2026 WL 482607
(E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2026).
The 	Court 	further 	directed 	that, 	if 	Respondents 	asserted 	no 	basis 	to
distinguish this Petition from the Court’s analysis in Hyppolite or H.A.C.F., the
submission could take the form of a letter so stating, and indicating whether
Respondents oppose issuance of the writ, subject to preservation of Respondents’
arguments 	for 	appeal. 	Finally, 	the 	Court’s 	March 	6, 	2026 	Order 	directed
Respondents, in the event they took the position that this case is distinguishable from
Hyppolite or H.A.C.F., to respond to the Petition and to show cause as to why it should
not be granted on or before March 9, 2026 at 3:00PM; to further affirm that they have
provided the Court with all facts material to Petitioner’s claims and Respondents’
opposition to those claims; and to attach all exhibits related to those three facts.
Respondents filed their initial submission on March 7, 2026, indicating that as
in Hyppolite, Petitioner was detained under the mandatory detention provisions of 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).1 ECF No. 4. Respondents noted their disagreement with the
1 Respondents’ submission states that “it is [their] position that Mr. Rojas-
Gonzalez, like the Petitioner in Hyppolite, is subject to detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)92)(A). 	ECF No. 4 at 2. 	The Court assumes that this was a typographical
Case 1:26-cv-01312-NRM Document 8 Filed 03/07/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Court’s decision in Hyppolite and reserved their right to appeal any grant of relief in
Petitioner’s case, but did not claim any basis to distinguish this case from Hyppolite.
Respondents have not alleged that they provided Petitioner with a pre-
detention bond hearing, which this Court found in Hyppolite is required for persons
similarly situated to Petitioner.
Accordingly, as it did in Hyppolite, the Court finds that Petitioner has
established that his detention violates his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due
process, because Petitioner has resided in the United States since 2024 and is
therefore 	entitled 	to 	an 	individualized, 	pre-detention 	bond 	hearing 	under 	the
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Hyppolite v. Noem, 25 CV
4303 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511, at *12–16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025); see also, e.g.,
Artiga v. Genalo, No. 25 CV 5208 (OEM), 2025 WL 2829434, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5,
2025); Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 498–99 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025);
Rodriguez v. Bostock, No. 25 CV 05240 (TMC), 2025 WL 2782499, at *16–26 (W.D.
Wash. Sep. 30, 2025); Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25 CV 06924 (EMC), 2025 WL
2637503, at *6–13 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 12, 2025); Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25 CV 3682,
2025 WL 2802947, at *5 (D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025) (collecting cases). 	Similarly, the
Court finds that Petitioner has established that the mandatory detention provisions
of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) and (b)(2) relied upon by Respondents to justify the legality
of Petitioner’s detention are inapplicable here, because Petitioner has been living
error, and that Respondents are referring to Mr. Campos Jovel, the petitioner in the
instant case.
Case 1:26-cv-01312-NRM Document 8 Filed 03/07/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
continuously in the United States and is not “seeking admission” under Section 1225.
The Court hereby incorporates by reference its earlier analysis of these issues
in Hyppolite, 2025 WL 2829511, at *6–16. Given that neither the Second Circuit nor
the United States Supreme Court has yet to address this precise question, the Court
adheres to the reasoning of its earlier decision and the near-unanimous conclusion
reached by hundreds of other district courts nationwide who have considered the
issue to date. Cf. ECF No. 7 at 2 n.1 (citing the decisions of six district courts within
the Second Circuit adopting Respondents’ analysis).
The Court has also weighed the factors under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
319 (1976), which sets forth the test that courts in the Second Circuit will apply when
determining 	“the 	adequacy 	of 	process 	in 	the 	context 	of 	civil 	immigration
confinement.” Munoz Materano v. Artera, No. 25 CV 6137, 2025 WL 2630826, at *12
(S.D.N.Y., Sep. 12, 2025). 	Having considered (1) the private interest that will be
affected by the official action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest
through the procedures used; and (3) the government's interest, including the fiscal
and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would
entail, see Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, the Court finds that the balance of interests
weighs heavily in Petitioner’s favor, and that granting the writ is an appropriate
remedy for the deprivation of his right to procedural due process.
It is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Respondents must release
Case 1:26-cv-01312-NRM Document 8 Filed 03/07/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Petitioner from custody no later than 10:00AM on Sunday, March 8, 2026.
In light of the fact that Petitioner is presently being held at MDC in Brooklyn,
New York, it is further ORDERED that counsel for Respondents shall keep
Petitioner’s counsel informed regarding the timing, location, and manner of
Petitioner’s release from custody, so that counsel may be present or arrange to
have a family member or other representative present at the time of Petitioner’s
release.
Respondents, through counsel, shall file a letter on the docket no later
than 1:00PM on that same date (Sunday, March 8, 2026), confirming that
Petitioner has been released from custody.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents are ENJOINED from re-
detaining Petitioner, absent prior authorization of this Court and without notice and
an opportunity to be heard at a pre-deprivation bond hearing, at which Respondents
will bear the burden of showing that his detention is authorized under 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a).
The Court’s earlier order scheduling a hearing for March 13, 2026 is hereby
vacated in light of the Court’s resolution of the merits of the petition. 	Petitioner’s
counsel may submit an application for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal
Access to Justice Act within the time provided by the Local Rules.
SO ORDERED.
Case 1:26-cv-01312-NRM Document 8 Filed 03/07/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
/s/ Nina R. Morrison
NINA R. MORRISON
United States District Judge
Dated: 	March 7, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-01312-NRM Document 8 Filed 03/07/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>