Padilla Torres v. Noem et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 26-cv-01032-PAB
JOSE LUIS PADILLA TORRES,
Petitioner,
v.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, 1 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,
GEORGE VALDEZ, 2 in his official capacity as ICE Field Office Director,
JUAN BALTAZAR, in his official capacity as warden of the Aurora Immigration
Detention Facility,
PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as the United States Attorney General,
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, and
THE BOAD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS,
Respondents.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Jose Luis Padilla Torres’s
Verified Petition for Habeas Corpus. Docket No. 1. Respondents filed a response.
Docket No. 7. 3
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Markwayne Mullin is
automatically substituted as a party in this action.
2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), George Valdez is
automatically substituted as a party in this action.
3 Respondents argue that the named non-individual respondents—United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and the Executive Office for Immigration
Review—are not properly named in a habeas petition. Docket No. 7 at 1 n.1. The
Court agrees and will grant the habeas petition against the individual respondents only.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01032-PAB Document 8 filed 03/26/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 5

2
I. BACKGROUND 4
Petitioner is a Venezuelan national. Docket No. 1 at 2. Petitioner initially entered
the United States without parole or inspection on or about March 30, 2023. Id.
Petitioner was detained and placed in removal proceedings on April 8, 2023. Id. at 8.
He was released on his own recognizance. Id. Petitioner lives in Colorado and has a
long-time partner and four children. Id. One day, upon arriving at his home, petitioner
was detained by ICE. 5 Id. Petitioner is being held at the Aurora Contract Detention
Facility. Id. at 2.
On March 12, 2026, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See
generally id. Petitioner brings claims that respondents are detaining him in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a), and that respondents are violating his due process rights. Id. at 14-
17. Petitioner requests, among other things, that the Court require respondents to
provide him with a bond hearing. Id. at 18.
II. ANALYSIS
The parties disagree on whether petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226 or 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Id. at 9-10; Docket No. 7 at 1-2. Petitioner contends that
his detention should be controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because § 1226(a) applies to
the detention of noncitizens, like petitioner, who previously entered and are now
residing within the United States. Docket No. 1 at 10. Because he believes that § 1226
applies, petitioner argues that respondents must provide him with a bond hearing. See
id. at 17. Respondents, however, contend that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to
4 The following facts are taken from the habeas petition. Docket No. 1.
Respondents have not disputed any facts and do not provide any facts of their own.
See generally Docket No. 7.
5 Petitioner does not allege the date that he was detained.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01032-PAB Document 8 filed 03/26/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 5

3
noncitizens like petitioner who are “present in the United States without having been
admitted.” Docket No. 7 at 2. Respondents claim that petitioner is therefore not entitled
to a bond hearing and is subject to mandatory detention. Id.
On many occasions, this Court has analyzed whether § 1225 or § 1226 applies
to petitioners who were detained when already present in the United States without
inspection and who face removal proceedings. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Baltasar, No. 26-
cv-01036-PAB, 2026 WL 809548 (D. Colo. Mar. 24, 2026); Cruz v. Noem, No. 26-cv-
00312-PAB-NRN, 2026 WL 766689, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 18, 2026); Moncada-
Hernandez v. Trump, No. 26-cv-00436-PAB, 2026 WL 472744, at *2-3 (D. Colo. Feb.
19, 2026); De La Cruz v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00360-PAB, 2026 WL 439217, at *2 (D.
Colo. Feb. 16, 2026); Alfaro Orellana v. Noem, No. 25-cv-03976-PAB, 2025 WL
3706417, at *2-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 22, 2025). Each time, the Court has ruled that the
petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226. Id.
Respondents acknowledge that the Court has previously analyzed this issue,
conceding “the facts of this case are not materially distinguishable . . . 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).” Docket No. 7 at 3. Respondents state that they
submit an abbreviated response “to conserve resources and expedite this Court’s
consideration of this case, while preserving legal arguments and reserving all of
Respondent’s rights including the right to appeal.” Id. at 2. Respondents note that a
decision in this district rejecting respondents’ position has been appealed to the Tenth
Circuit. Id. at 3 (citing Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar, No. 25-cv-02720-RMR, 2025 WL
2962908 (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2025)). “Respondents acknowledge that until the Tenth
Case No. 1:26-cv-01032-PAB Document 8 filed 03/26/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 5

4
Circuit rules on this issue, the 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 the 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. Respondents incorporate by reference the legal arguments that
respondents presented in Mendoza Gutierrez, the case which was appealed to the
Tenth Circuit. Id. at 3-4.
The Court has analyzed the response that was submitted in Mendoza Gutierrez.
See Mendoza Gutierrez, No. 25-cv-02720-RMR, Docket No. 26 (D. Colo. Sept. 16,
2025). Not finding any additional relevant arguments that the Court has not already
addressed in its past orders on this issue, the Court will grant the habeas petition for the
same reasons as it did in Sanchez, which respondents acknowledge does not materially
differ from the present case. Docket No. 7 at 2. Because there is no evidence that
petitioner has been provided a bond hearing, his current detention violates § 1226(a).
The Court will grant the habeas petition on the § 1226 claim and will order respondents
to provide petitioner a bond hearing within seven days of the date of this order. 6
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
6 Because the Court will grant the habeas petition on the basis of the 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) claim, it will not reach petitioner’s due process claim. See Hernandez v.
Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03094-CNS, 2025 WL 2996643, at *8 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2025) (“the
Court declines to adjudicate Petitioner's due process claim on the merits at this time
because the Court grants the relief Petitioner seeks based on the applicability of
§ 1226(a)”).
Case No. 1:26-cv-01032-PAB Document 8 filed 03/26/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 5

5
ORDERED that petitioner Jose Luis Padilla Torres’s Verified Petition for Habeas
Corpus [Docket No. 1] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that respondents shall provide petitioner with a bond hearing under 8
U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of the date of this Court’s order. It is further
ORDERED that, within five days of petitioner’s bond hearing, the parties shall
file a status report indicating whether the bond hearing was held and whether bond was
granted or denied.
DATED March 26, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
___________________________
Case No. 1:26-cv-01032-PAB Document 8 filed 03/26/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 5