Toro Rodriguez v. Baltazar et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-01068-CNS
KEVIN GEOVANNY TORO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTAZAR, Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility, Aurora, Colorado, in his
official capacity;
GEORGE VALDEZ, Acting Field Office Director, Denver Field Office, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement;
TROY EDGAR, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his official
capacity,
INCOMING SCRETARY, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”);
TODD LYONS, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official
capacity; and
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States,
Respondents.
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Kevin Geovanny Toro Rodriguez’s Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 1. As the briefing demonstrates that Petitioner’s now all too
familiar challenge to Respondents’ authority under § 1225(b)(2) is fundamentally legal in
nature, the Court declines to hold a hearing, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and, for the reasons
outlined 	below, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS 	the 	petition 	and 	ORDERS 	Respondents 	to
immediately release Petitioner from immigration detention. In doing so, the Court
presumes familiarity with the parties’ briefing. See ECF Nos. 1, 9.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01068-CNS Document 11 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 7

2
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
District courts may grant a writ of habeas corpus to any person who demonstrates
he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The individual in custody bears the burden of proving that his
detention is unlawful. Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 286 (1941).
II. 	ANALYSIS
The legal issues presented here are not novel. Petitioner, a citizen of Columbia
who entered the United States in 2022, ECF No. 1 ¶ 8, represents that after he first
entered the country, he was initially detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), served with a Notice to Appear, and charged with being removable from the United
States. Id. ¶ 16 (citing ECF No. 1-1). Despite his requesting a custody redetermination
before an immigration judge (IJ) at that time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
released Petitioner on his own recognizance before a custody redetermination could be
made. Id. ¶ 16 (citing ECF No. 1-2 (EOIR Order of Release on Own Recognizance).
Petitioner subsequently filed an Application for Asylum, Withholding of Removal and
Withholding Under the Convention Against Torture. Id. Although Petitioner’s case was set
for a hearing before an IJ on April 28, 2026, when he reported to immigration authorities
on November 10, 2025 (as he was required to do under his order of supervision),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took Petitioner into custody. Id. ¶ 17.
Petitioner “has been detained at the [ICE Denver Contract Detention Facility] in Aurora,
Colorado” ever since, id. ¶ 3.
Case No. 1:26-cv-01068-CNS Document 11 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 7

3
Petitioner challenges his detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, id. ¶ 4, and contends
that ICE has “erroneously deemed him subject to mandatory detention,” id. ¶ 2. Petitioner
argues that because that he does not have any criminal convictions or a final order of
removal, he should be detained pursuant to the discretionary detention provision in
8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), id. ¶ 22, rather than the mandatory detention provision in 8 U.S.C. §
1225. Id. As relief, Petitioner requests that the Court issue “a writ of habeas corpus
requiring Respondents to immediately release [Petitioner] under conditions no more
restrictive than those placed upon him when he was originally released.” Id. at 14.
Petitioner also asks that the Court issue “an order requiring Respondents to return to
[Petitioner] all his original identification documents.” Id.
This is not the first time such requests have been before the Court in recent
months. 	Like 	other 	immigration-related 	habeas 	petitions 	the 	Court 	has 	recently
considered, this case concerns a noncitizen who, despite living in the United States for
over two years, is being held in mandatory immigration-related detention following the
government’s recent reinterpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA). The arguments raised here echo nearly identical arguments
rejected by courts across the country and in this judicial district, including this Court.1
1 Compare ECF Nos. 1, 9 and e.g., Singh v. Baltazar, 26-cv-00336-CNS, 2026 WL 352870 (D. Colo. Feb.
9, 2026); Arenas v. Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00024-SBP, 2026 WL 317562 (D. Colo. Feb. 5, 2026); Hernandez-
Redondo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-PAB, 2026 WL 290989 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Concha-Gonzales v.
Noem, No. 1:26-cv-00001-CNS, 2026 WL 194178 (D. Colo. Jan. 26, 2026); Alfaro Herrera v. Baltazar, No.
1:25-cv-04014-CNS, 2026 WL 91470, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2026); Rico v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-03943-
CNS, 2025 WL 3640366 (D. Colo. Dec. 16, 2025); Valera v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-CV-03744-CNS, 2025 WL
3496174 (D. Colo. Dec. 5, 2025); Espinoza Ruiz v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-03642-CNS, 2025 WL 3294762
(D. 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
Case No. 1:26-cv-01068-CNS Document 11 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 7

4
As in other cases, Respondents here argue that Petitioner’s requested relief
should be denied because he is properly detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A) as an “applicant
for admission” to the United States. ECF No. 9 at 6–9. Respondents’ arguments do not
convince 	the 	Court 	to 	deviate 	from 	its 	prior 	determination 	that 	§ 	1225(b)(2)(A)’s
mandatory detention requirement does not apply to noncitizens, like Petitioner, who have
been present in the United States for over two years and have no qualifying criminal
convictions. See, e.g., Hernandez, 2025 WL 2996643, at *4 (“the plain text and structure
of § 1225 and § 1226 support a determination that § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s provision for
mandatory detention does not apply to someone like [Petitioner], who has been residing
the United States for more than two years”) (quotations and citations omitted). Likewise,
as the Court previously explained, invocation of the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in
Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (Feb. 6, 2026) does not persuade. See
Singh, 2026 WL 352870, at *3–6. The Court thus accepts in full its reasoning outlined in
Hernandez, as well as its other decisions, and adopts it here. See generally Hernandez,
2025 WL 2996643; see also Espinoza Ruiz, 2025 WL 3294762, at *2 (discussing “the
proper application of §§ 1225 and 1226” as articulated by the Supreme Court in Jennings
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 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-01068-CNS Document 11 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 7

5
v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018)); Singh, 2026 WL 352870, at *3–6 (discussing and
rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion in Buenrostro-Mendez).
However, unlike in Hernandez, the Court is not persuaded that ordering a § 1226
bond hearing is the appropriate remedy here given the particular facts of Petitioner’s case.
Specifically, after Petitioner was detained by CBP in 2022, he was released by DHS on
his own recognizance. See ECF No. 1 at 23 (Ex. 2). In the years following his release,
Petitioner 	represents 	that 	he 	“has 	followed 	the 	requirements 	of 	check 	ins” 	with
immigration authorities, has been “working pursuant to a lawful grant of employment
authorization,” ECF No. 1 ¶ 40, and has not had any criminal convictions requiring his
mandatory detention, id. ¶ 22. Petitioner also has a pending Application for Asylum,
Withholding of Removal and Withholding Under the Convention Against Torture. Id. ¶ 16.
Petitioner contends that because DHS released him on an Order of Release on
Recognizance in 2022, immigration officials have already determined that he is not a flight
risk or danger to the community. Id. ¶¶ 41–42. This argument is persuasive. See, e.g.,
Singh v. Bondi, No. 1:25-cv-02101-SEB-TAB, 2025 WL 3029524, at *5–6 (S.D. Ind. Oct.
30, 2025) (explaining that “[u]nder § 1225, the government’s options were limited to
removal or detention pending review by an asylum officer. The fact that the government’s
release of [petitioner], on his own recognizance, was based on § 1226 is strong evidence
that he currently remains subject to § 1226, rather than § 1225.”) (citing Lopez Benitez v.
Francis, No. 25 CIV. 5937 (DEH), 2025 WL 2371588, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025)
(emphasis added)). Given that Respondents already determined that it was proper to
release Petitioner on his own recognizance in 2022 and do not offer any explanation for
Case No. 1:26-cv-01068-CNS Document 11 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 7

6
why 	it 	is 	now 	proper 	to 	hold 	him 	in 	mandatory 	detention 	(beyond 	the 	recent
reinterpretation of §§ 1225, 1226), the Court sees no reason to prolong Petitioner’s
detention. See id. (Since the “Government has affirmatively decided to treat’ [Petitioner]
‘as being detained under Section 1226(a) . . . it cannot now . . . change its position to
claim that he is detained under Section 1225(b).”) (citing Patel v. Crowley, No. 25 C
11180, 2025 WL 2996787, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2025)).
Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s request for immediate release. See, e.g.,
Valera v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-03744-CNS, 2025 WL 3496174, at *3 (D. Colo. Dec. 5,
2025) 	(ordering 	noncitizen’s 	immediate 	release 	where 	Respondents 	have 	already
determined that the noncitizen is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community).
III. 	CONCLUSION
Consistent with the foregoing analysis and pursuant to the Court’s authority under
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. 	Respondents SHALL RELEASE Petitioner from custody immediately, but no
later than within 24 hours of this Order, and may not impose any additional
conditions of release or supervision not previously imposed by DHS in
connection with Petitioner’s 2022 Order of Release on Recognizance;
3. 	To 	the 	extent 	Respondents 	are 	in 	possession 	of 	Petitioner’s 	original
identification documents, Respondents must provide those documents to
Petitioner upon his release;
Case No. 1:26-cv-01068-CNS Document 11 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 7

7
4. 	Respondents shall file a status report within TWO DAYS of this order to certify
compliance; and
5. 	Respondents are further ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re-detaining
Petitioner unless they demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence at a pre-
deprivation bond hearing, that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the
community such that his physical custody is legally justified. At any such bond
hearing, the government shall bear the burden of proof.
DATED this 24th day of March 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:26-cv-01068-CNS Document 11 filed 03/25/26 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 7