Fernandez Tolayo v. Knight et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
GAMALIEL FERNANDEZ TOLAYO
Petitioner,
v.
JASON KNIGHT, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Case No. 1:26-cv-00147-RJS
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Before the court is Gamaliel Fernandez Tolayo’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.1
For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES the Petition.
BACKGROUND2
A. Petitioner Fernandez
Fernandez is a citizen of Mexico.3 In 2018, Fernandez entered the United States without
inspection and has remained in the country since.4 Fernandez has not previously been detained
by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).5 At the time he was detained, Fernandez
had been residing in Salt Lake City, Utah for the last six years.6
On September 17, 2026, ICE officers stopped a vehicle in which Fernandez was a
1 Dkt. 1, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Petition); see 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (authorizing
the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus).
2 The following facts are drawn from the Petition; Dkt. 11, Response to Order to Show Cause (Response); and Dkt.
14, Reply to Order to Show Cause (Reply).
3 Petition ¶ 36.
4 Id. ¶¶ 3–4.
5 Id. ¶ 4.
6 Id. ¶ 6.
Case 1:26-cv-00147-RJS Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 6

2
passenger.7 While ICE was interviewing Fernandez, he unsuccessfully attempted to flee the
officers on foot.8 ICE subsequently arrested Fernandez without a warrant, finding it likely
Fernandez would escape before a warrant could be issued.9 A warrant was issued later that
day.10 Based on the interview and Fernandez’s attempt to abscond, the arresting officer
determined Fernandez was a flight risk who was unfit for release.11
Upon Fernandez’s detention, ICE provided him a form I-286, Notice of Custody
Determination, which gave him the option to request or decline a custody redetermination before
an immigration judge.12 An ICE officer read the form to Fernandez in Spanish.13 Fernandez did
not make a custody redetermination election and refused to sign the document altogether.14
Since then, neither Fernandez nor his attorney have submitted a bond hearing request to the
Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR).15
On September 21, 2026, Fernandez filed the instant Petition and Emergency Motion to
Stay Transfer.16 On September 28, 2026, the court granted in part the Emergency Motion and
ordered Respondents to show cause why the Petition should not be granted.17 On October 5,
7 Id. ¶ 7; see also Dkt. 11-1, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien at 2.
8 Response at 2: Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien at 2.
9 Response at 2.
10 Id.; see also Dkt. 11-2, Warrant for Arrest of Alien.
11 Response at 2.
12 Id. at 1–3; see also Dkt. 11-3, Notice of Custody Determination.
13 Response at 3.
14 Response at 3; Notice of Custody Determination.
15 Response at 3; see also Reply at 2 (stating “Fernandez’s family has retained an immigration attorney who will
request a bond hearing) (emphasis added).
16 Petition; Dkt. 3, Emergency Motion to Stay Transfer During Pendency of Petition.
17 Dkt. 7, Order to Show Cause.
Case 1:26-cv-00147-RJS Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 6

3
2026, Respondents filed their Response.18 Fernandez filed a reply the following day.19
LEGAL STANDARD
Habeas corpus “test[s] proceedings so fundamentally lawless that imprisonment pursuant
to them is not merely erroneous but void.”20 The court may issue a writ of habeas corpus if a
petitioner is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United States.”21
Fernandez bears the burden of establishing his detention is unlawful.22
ANALYSIS
Fernandez challenges his detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and
the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.23 For the reasons discussed below, the court
concludes neither claim merits relief.
I. 	INA
Because Fernandez was detained in the interior of the United States years after his arrival
to the country, his detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226.24 Under the Section, immigration
enforcement authorities may arrest and detain a noncitizen pending a removal decision “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General.”25 “[Section] 1226 permits immigration officials to
18 Response.
19 Reply.
20 Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 423 (1963).
21 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
22 See Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 286 (1941).
23 Petition at 9–14.
24 See Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1246 (10th Cir. 2026) (holding noncitizens arrested in the interior
of the country may be detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, while mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 “is
restricted to the border”).
25 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The INA refers to noncitizens as “aliens.” See, e.g., id. § 1101(a). The term “alien” and
“noncitizen” may be used interchangeably. Compare Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 106
(2020) (using “aliens”), with Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 158 (Sotomayor, J. dissenting) (using “noncitizens”).
Accordingly, the court uses both terms throughout this Order.
Case 1:26-cv-00147-RJS Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 6

4
release the alien on bond subject to some exceptions.”26 A noncitizen may submit an application
for an initial bond redetermination before an immigration judge.27
Fernandez contends his detention violates the INA on two grounds: (1) “a judicial
warrant for Petitioner’s arrest was not issued before he entered ICE custody”; and (2) “to the
extent ICE performed an individualized assessment, ICE did not give him the chance to rebut
their assessment—before they took him into custody.”28 The court concludes neither argument
is meritorious.
First, the arresting-officer was authorized to conduct a warrantless arrest considering the
circumstances presented. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357, an ICE officer “shall have the power without
warrant . . . to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so
arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape
before a warrant can be obtained.”29 Here, Fernandez does not challenge whether the officer had
reason to believe Fernandez was in the United States in violation of the law.30 Fernandez
attempted to flee the ICE officer while being interviewed.31 A warrant for Fernandez’s arrest
was issued shortly thereafter.32 Accordingly, Fernandez’s arrest did not violate the INA for lack
of a warrant.
Second, Fernandez’s argument that ICE was required to provide him—prior to arrest—
26 Santillan Quiroz, 180 F.4th at 1234 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A)) (citation modified); see also Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (“Federal regulations provide that aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive
bond hearings at the outset of detention.”).
27 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(b).
28 Petition at 11.
29 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2).
30 In his Reply, Fernandez alludes to possible Fourth Amendment violations in the initial traffic stop. Reply at 3.
However, he provides no meaningful legal analysis on this issue, nor does he contend the warrantless arrest violated
§ 1357’s requirements. See id. Accordingly, the court presumes this requirement was met.
31 Response at 2.
32 Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00147-RJS Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 6

5
the opportunity to “demonstrate[e] to the satisfaction of the officer that such release would not
pose a danger to property or persons, and that the alien is likely to appear for any future
proceeding” is unavailing. 33 	ICE did offer Fernandez the opportunity to demonstrate he was not
a flight risk by providing him with an initial interview before arresting him..34 Further,
Fernandez has since been offered the opportunity to demonstrate he is not a flight risk at a bond
redetermination before an immigration judge—an opportunity he has yet to request.35 The court
therefore concludes his detention does not violation the INA on this ground either.
II. 	Due Process
The court next turns to Fernandez’s claim his detention violates the Fifth Amendment
Due Process Clause. Fernandez first asserts, “He was not even notified of his right to a bond
hearing or given the opportunity to request one. This violated due process.”36 This assertion is
contradicted by the facts. Upon his detention, Fernandez was provided plain notice of his right
to a bond redetermination hearing and a clear opportunity to request one via a Notice of Custody
Determination Form—read to him in Spanish—which clearly stated, “You may request a review
of this custody determination by an immigration judge.”37 Fernandez argues his “refusal to sign
a form is not the same as declining a bond hearing.”38 Whether or not Fernandez affirmatively
declined ICE’s initial opportunity to provide him a bond hearing does not bear on whether his
detention violates the Fifth Amendment; rather, the question is whether he was and continues to
33 Petition at 11 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 236.1).
34 Response at 2.
35 Id. at 2–3.
36 Petition at 11.
37 Response at 2–3; Notice of Custody Determination.
38 Reply at 2 (citing Leon Arias v. Leyva et al., 2:26-cv-00812-RJS, 2026 WL 2957987, at *3 (D. Utah Oct. 1,
2026)).
Case 1:26-cv-00147-RJS Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 6

6
be offered notice of and the opportunity to request a bond hearing. The court finds he was
offered both. As Respondents note, Fernandez and his immigration attorney remain free to
request a hearing from the EOIR in writing or by phone,39 yet there is no evidence he has done
so.40 Accordingly, the court concludes his detention does not violate the Due Process Clause.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the court DENIES the Petition.41 The Clerk of Court is
directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2026.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
JUDGE ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Court
39 Response at 3; see 8 C.F.R.§ 1003.19(b)–(c).
40 See generally Reply.
41 Dkt. 1.
Case 1:26-cv-00147-RJS Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 6
of 6