Suarez Sanchez v. Baltasar et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 26-cv-01036-PAB
CARLOS ALBERTO SUAREZ SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JUAN BALTASAR, 1 Warden, Aurora Contract Detention Facility,
GREGORY DAVIES, Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations,
Denver Field Office,
TODD LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, and
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW,
Respondents.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Carlos Alberto Suarez
Sanchez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Docket No. 1. Respondents filed a
response. Docket No. 7. 2
1 The proper spelling of this respondent’s name appears to be Baltazar. See,
e.g., De La Cruz v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00360-PAB, 2026 WL 439217 (D. Colo. Feb. 17,
2026); Gonzalez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00297-PAB, 2026 WL 415600 (D. Colo. Feb. 13,
2026); Portillo Martinez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00106-PAB, 2026 WL 194163 (D. Colo.
Jan. 26, 2026); Florez Marin v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03697-PAB, 2025 WL 3677019 (D.
Colo. Dec. 18, 2025).
2 Respondents argue that the named non-individual respondent—the Executive
Office for Immigration Review—is 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-01036-PAB Document 8 filed 03/24/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 5

2
I. BACKGROUND 3
Petitioner is a Venezuelan national. Docket No. 1 at 2, ¶ 1. Petitioner initially
entered the United States without inspection near Eagle Pass, Texas on or about
October 11, 2023. Id. Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings via a Notice to
Appear charging him with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)
§ 212(a)(6)(A)(i). Id. On October 13, 2023, petitioner was released on his own
recognizance. Id., ¶ 2. On February 17, 2026, petitioner appeared for a routine check-
in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and was detained. Id., ¶ 4.
Petitioner is being held at the Aurora Contract Detention Facility. Id.
On March 13, 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), 4 and that respondents are violating his due process rights. Id. at 12-
15, ¶¶ 57-77. Petitioner requests, among other things, that the Court require
respondents to provide him with a bond hearing. Id. at 16.
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 6, ¶ 33; 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
3 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.
4 Petitioner refers to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) as INA § 236(a). “Section 236 of the INA
is codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1226.” Briales-Zuniga v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-
03439-NYW, 2026 WL 35227, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 6, 2026). Throughout this order, the
Court will reference 8 U.S.C. § 1226 instead of INA § 236(a).
Case No. 1:26-cv-01036-PAB Document 8 filed 03/24/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 5

3
residing within the United States. Docket No. 1 at 6, ¶ 33. Because he believes that
§ 1226 applies, petitioner argues that respondents must provide him with a bond
hearing. See id. at 8, ¶ 41. Respondents, however, contend that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to 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 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); Gabriel-Morales v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-00392-PAB, 2026 WL 415597, at *2 (D.
Colo. Feb. 13, 2026); Gonzalez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00297-PAB, 2026 WL 415600, at
*1-2 (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2026); Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-PAB,
2026 WL 290989, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Armenta v. Noem, No. 26-cv-00236-
PAB, 2026 WL 274634, at *1-5 (D. Colo. Feb. 3, 2026); Portillo Martinez v. Baltazar, No.
26-cv-00106-PAB, 2026 WL 194163, at *2-5 (D. Colo. Jan. 26, 2026); Garcia-Perez v.
Guadian, No. 25-cv-04069-PAB, 2026 WL 89613, at *2-4 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2026);
Alfaro Orellana v. Noem, No. 25-cv-03976-PAB, 2025 WL 3706417, at *2-4 (D. Colo.
Dec. 22, 2025); Florez Marin v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03697-PAB, 2025 WL 3677019, at
Case No. 1:26-cv-01036-PAB Document 8 filed 03/24/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 5

4
*1-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 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
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 the 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 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
Case No. 1:26-cv-01036-PAB Document 8 filed 03/24/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 5

5
same reasons as it did in Alfaro Orellana, 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. 5
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that petitioner Carlos Alberto Suarez Sanchez’s Petition for Writ of
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 24, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
5 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 claims. See Hernandez v.
Baltazar, No. 1:25-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-01036-PAB Document 8 filed 03/24/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 5