Gonzales Sifontes v. Baltazar et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Regina M. Rodriguez

Civil Action No. 26-cv-3531-RMR

ELMER POMPILIO GONZALES SIFONTES,

Petitioner,

v.

JUAN BALTAZAR, Warden of the Denver Contract Detention Facility (Aurora ICE
Processing Center), in his official capacity,
GEORGE VALDEZ, Field Office Director, Denver Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity,
DAVID VENTURELLA, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in
his official capacity,
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity,
TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General of the United States, in his official capacity,

Respondents.

ORDER

Petitioner Elmer Pompilio Gonzales Sifontes (“Petitioner”) is a citizen of Honduras
who entered the United States over twenty years ago. ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. He is married and
the father of United States citizen children. Id. He has maintained steady employment
and filed federal income tax returns for many years. Id. He owns a home and has no
criminal history. Id. Before his detention, Petitioner resided with his family in Fort Pierce,
Florida. Id. ¶ 30. On July 14, 2023, Petitioner filed an application for asylum, which
remains pending. Id. ¶ 32. On March 30, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) arrested Petitioner served him with a Notice to Appear and initiated removal
proceedings against him. Id. ¶ 33. He has been detained since. Id.
Case No. 1:26-cv-03531-RMR Document 12 filed 08/14/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 6

2

On June 15, 2026, Petitioner requested a custody redetermination hearing before
the Aurora Immigration Court. Id. ¶ 34. The next day, Immigration Judge Masters denied
the request without reaching the issues of danger or flight risk. Id. ¶ 35. Petitioner seeks
immediate release from custody or, in the alternative, a new custody redetermination
hearing before a different Immigration Judge.
1
Id. at 13. The relief requested by Petitioner
and the legal claims and arguments upon which it’s premised, are familiar to the Court
and the parties. Without a final order of removal, Petitioner is arguably detained under 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). This Court previously analyzed the statutory framework and
determined that “§ 1225(b)(2) only applies to noncitizens ‘seeking admission’ and
inspected while trying to enter the country, and not to noncitizens who have lived in the
United States continuously for over two years,” Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, No. 25-
CV-2720-RMR, 2025 WL 2962908, at *5-*9 (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2025), and joined the
chorus of courts in this district and around the nation that have overwhelmingly rejected
Respondents’ position.
2
See also Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-3141-PR, 2026 WL 1146044,

1
Petitioner filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, and Respondents filed a Response,
ECF No. 9. Petitioner also filed the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction,
ECF No. 2, and Respondents filed a Response, ECF No. 11.
2
See Espinoza Ruiz v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-03642-CNS, 2025 WL 3294762 (D
2
Colo. Nov. 26, 2025);
Arauz v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-03260-CNS, 2025 WL 3041840 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2025); Hernandez v.
Baltazar, et al., No. 1:25-cv-03094-CNS, 2025 WL 2996643 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2025); Hernandez Vazquez
v. Baltasar, et al., No. 1:25-cv-3049-GPG, ECF No. 22 (D. Colo. Oct. 23, 2025); Loa Caballero v. Baltazar,
et al., No. 1:25-cv-3120-NYW, 2025 WL 2977650 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2025); Pineda v. Baltasar, No. 25-cv-
02955-GPG, 2025 WL 3516291, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 20, 2025); Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, et al., No.
1:25-cv-2720-RMR, 2025 WL 2962908 (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2025); Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-
02677-CNS, 2025 WL 2652880 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025); Carrillo Fernandez, 2025 WL 3485800; Garcia-
Arauz v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-02117-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 3470902 (D. Nev. Dec. 3, 2025); Escobar Salgado
v. Mattos, No. 2:25-cv-01872-RFB-EJY, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 3205356 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2025);
Ramos v. Rokosky, No. 25cv15892 (EP), 2025 WL 3063588 (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 2025); Godinez-Lopez v.
Ladwig, 2025 WL 3047889 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 31, 2025); Jimenez v. FCI Berlin, Warden, No. 25-CV-326-
LM-AJ, 2025 WL 2639390 (D.N.H. Sept. 8, 2025); Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, No. 2:25-CV-12486, 2025
WL 2496379 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2025); Romero v. Hyde, Civil Action No. 25-11631-BEM, 2025 WL
Case No. 1:26-cv-03531-RMR Document 12 filed 08/14/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 6

3

at *5 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) (“In sum, Section 1226(a) plainly applies to noncitizens, like
Petitioner, who are present in the United States, but charged as inadmissible for entering
the country without inspection and admission.”); id. at *13 (“[W]e find no basis to justify
departing from the unambiguous meaning of the text, under which Petitioner is not subject
to mandatory detention, because he is not ‘seeking admission’ under Section
1225(b)(2)(A).”).
Since then, the Tenth Circuit has also spoken and articulated in great detail the
reasons why noncitizens “in the country’s interior,” like Petitioner, are not subject to
mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). See generally, Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, No.
26-6019, 2026 WL 1876709 (10th Cir. June 30, 2026). The Tenth Circuit concluded that,
“[b]ased on the statutory text and context . . . “§1225(b)(2)(A)’s application is limited to
the border.” Id. at *8. Because Petitioner has resided in the United States and was not
detained at the border, he is improperly detained under § 1225. Additionally,
Respondents have not submitted a brief in opposition to the Petition or the Motion. ECF
Nos. 9 and 11.
With respect to the appropriate relief, this Court has previously granted similar
petitions and ordered Respondents to provide those petitioners with a bond hearing
where the “Government shall bear the burden of proving, by clear and convincing
evidence, that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the community such that his physical
custody is legally justified.” See Tzompa Garcia v. Baltazar, No. 26-CV-2713-RMR, 2026

2403827 (D. Mass. Aug. 19, 2025); Lopez Benitez v. Francis, No. 25 Civ. 5937 (DEH), 795 F.Supp.3d 475
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025).
Case No. 1:26-cv-03531-RMR Document 12 filed 08/14/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 6

4

WL 2240137, at *1 (D. Colo. Aug. 4, 2026); see also A.A.G.R. v. Baltazar, No. 26-CV-
02344-RMR, 2026 WL 2110577, at *2 (D. Colo. July 22, 2026). Several of these bond
hearings were not compliant with the Court’s orders, specifically with respect to applying
the “clear and convincing” standard. Tzompa Garcia, 2026 WL 2240137, at *3; A.A.G.R.,
2026 WL 2110577, at *3. Other courts in this District have also expressed “concern[] that
the immigration courts are not affording immigrants fair bond hearings,” as “the mounting
evidence that bond determination hearings conducted in Immigration Court under
§ 1226(a) have preordained outcomes has become impossible to ignore.” Pal v. Lyons,
2026 WL 937962, at *4 (D. Colo. Apr. 7, 2025); see also Quiroz Zacarias v. Mullin, 2026
WL 1092162, at *4-*5 (D. Colo. Apr. 22, 2026); see also Asfir v. Blanche, No. 26-cv-
01435-GPG (D. Colo. July 2, 2026). Given this reality, the Court finds Petitioner’s
immediate release is the appropriate remedy. See Santillan Quiroz, 2026 WL 1876709,
at *17 n.13 (contemplating the district court should “order the Government to, within seven
days of such order, either provide [the petitioner] with a bond hearing or else release
him.”).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED;
2. Respondents shall IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Petitioner on his own recognizance,
along with all his personal belongings, without onerous conditions of release,
including, without limitation, GPS monitoring, mandatory reporting, or other
restrictions on his movement. Respondents shall facilitate Petitioner’s
Case No. 1:26-cv-03531-RMR Document 12 filed 08/14/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 6

5

transportation from the detention facility by providing all necessary identity and
travel documents to return to his primary address;
3. Respondents are ENJOINED from re-arresting or re-detaining Petitioner unless
they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-deprivation bond
hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, that he is a flight risk or danger to the
community such that his physical custody is legally justified pursuant to 8 U.S.C
§ 1226(a). At any such bond hearing, Respondents shall bear the burden of proof,
and Petitioner shall be allowed to have counsel present. This injunction shall
remain in effect until such time as this Court, or the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,
vacates this Order;
4. During such periods of time as Petitioner remains in Respondents’ custody,
Respondents shall continue to be ENJOINED from removing, transferring, or
causing the removal or transfer of Petitioner from the District of Colorado until such
time as this Court, or the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, vacates this Order;
5. On or before August 19, 2026, Respondents shall file a status report certifying
compliance with this Order; and
6. Because Petitioner has received the relief he requests, his Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, is DENIED AS MOOT.
Case No. 1:26-cv-03531-RMR Document 12 filed 08/14/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 6

6

DATED: August 14, 2026
BY THE COURT:

______________________________
REGINA M. RODRIGUEZ
United States District Judge

Case No. 1:26-cv-03531-RMR Document 12 filed 08/14/26 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 6