Martinez Torres v. Noem et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case No. 26-cv-01062-CYC
GREGORIO MARTINEZ TORRES,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN1, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security;
TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement;
ARTHUR WILSON, in his official capacity as Field Office Director;
JUAN BALTAZAR, in his official capacity as the warden of the Aurora Immigration Detention
Facility;
PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as the United States Attorney General;
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW;
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; and
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Gregorio Martinez Torres, a detainee at the Aurora Contract Detention
Facility in Aurora, Colorado, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the
respondents, who control that facility, are improperly subjecting him to mandatory detention
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 1 (the “Petition”). Instead, he says, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
governs his detention vel non. Because this is a fundamentally legal debate, there is no need
for a hearing on the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the reasons that follow, the Court
1 Markwayne Mullin has become the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and is
automatically substituted as the defendant in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Case No. 1:26-cv-01062-CYC Document 12 filed 03/30/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 5

2
grants in part the Petition.
BACKGROUND
This case is one of numerous cases in this District and across the country seeking
habeas relief for immigrants detained within the United States under a new interpretation of 8
U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226. E.g., Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-PAB, 2026 WL
290989 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Jimenez Facio v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03592-CYC, 2025
WL 3559128 (D. Colo. Dec. 12, 2025); Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02677-CNS, 2025
WL 2652880 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025); Batz Barreno v. Baltasar, No. 25-cv-03017-GPG-
TPO, 2025 WL 3190936 (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2025); Loa Caballero v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-
03120-NYW, 2025 WL 2977650 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2025). The petitioner seeks release or, in
the alternative, a bond hearing. ECF No. 1 at 14–15.
The petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, has lived in the United States since he entered
without admission or parole in 2011. ECF No. 1 at 2, 7. As a result, he had been present in the
United States for years before he was encountered by Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”) officers on January 21, 2026. Id. at 7. That day, DHS issued him a Notice to Appear,
which indicated that he was “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or
paroled.” ECF No. 1-1 at 1. After he was taken into custody, he was transported to the Aurora
Contract Detention Facility and has been detained there since. ECF No. 1 at 8. On March 13,
2026, an Immigration Judge indicated that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the petitioner’s bond
hearing because DHS classified the petitioner as an applicant for admission. Id. at 2, 8. The
petitioner argues that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and the respondents
do not offer any evidence of a criminal history that requires mandatory detention. See 8 U.S.C. §
Case No. 1:26-cv-01062-CYC Document 12 filed 03/30/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 5

3
1226(c). Instead, they maintain that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). ECF No. 10 at
2–4.
ANALYSIS
A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to any person who demonstrates he is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
This includes “[c]hallenges to immigration detention.” Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305,
1310 (10th Cir. 2004). The individual in custody bears the burden of proving that their detention
is unlawful. Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 286 (1941).
To meet that burden, the petitioner argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) applies to him, “that
aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at the outset of detention,” Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)); see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) (providing for discretionary detention); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (providing
framework for requesting a bond determination), and that his continued detention premised on 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates his due process rights and the Immigration and Nationality Act.
ECF No. 1 at 4, 8–. The Court has previously resolved this legal question in favor of a similarly
situated petitioner. Jimenez Facio, 2025 WL 3559128, at *1–4. The respondents recognize this,
but “respectfully disagree with that ruling.” ECF No. 10 at 2. The Court remains firmly
convinced that it and the other judges in the District who have addressed this issue have correctly
decided those cases and incorporates its analysis from Jimenez Facio. 2025 WL 3559128, at *1–
4. To the extent the respondents contend that the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Buenrostro-
Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 502–08 (5th Cir. 2026), makes a difference, see ECF No. 10 at
2–3, Judge Sweeney’s thorough rebuttal of that divided decision provides a solid foundation to
maintain the consensus that exists in this District. See Singh v. Baltazar, --- F. Supp. 3d ----,
Case No. 1:26-cv-01062-CYC Document 12 filed 03/30/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 5

4
2026 WL 352870, at *3–6 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2026). The respondents also reference the Eighth
Circuit’s recent decision in Avila v. Bondi. --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25,
2026) and decisions of “some district courts . . . that have agreed with [their] interpretation of the
statute.” ECF No. 10 at 3. But they present no argument why these non-binding decisions require
the Court to reverse itself on this legal question. Indeed, they concede that “until the Tenth
Circuit rules on this issue, this Court’s prior ruling on this issue would lead the Court to reach the
same result here if the Court adheres to that decision, as the facts of this case are not materially
distinguishable from that case for purposes of the Court’s decision on the legal issue of whether
Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).” Id. at 3. And having
reviewed the cited decisions, the Court finds no reason to reverse itself. Accordingly, the Court
finds that the petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and his continued detention
without a bond hearing is therefore a violation of due process.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition, ECF No. 1, is
GRANTED in part.
It is further ORDERED that
(1) the respondents shall provide the petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within seven days of this Order;
(2) the respondents are ENJOINED from denying bond to the petitioner on the basis that
he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); and
(3) the respondents shall file a status report within seven days of the petitioner’s bond
hearing, stating whether he has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was
denied, the reasons for that denial.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01062-CYC Document 12 filed 03/30/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 5

5
Entered and dated this 30th day of March, 2026, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Cyrus Y. Chung
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-01062-CYC Document 12 filed 03/30/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 5