Liyanza v. Baltazar - Habeas Corpus Ruling

D. Colorado Opinions

Filed March 18th, 2026

Detected March 25th, 2026

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order regarding a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Dieu-Benit Basuki Liyanza. The case involves the petitioner's immigration status, detention, and pending asylum application.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

This document is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in the case of Dieu-Benit Basuki Liyanza v. Juan Baltazar, Warden, GEO Aurora Contract Detention Facility. The order addresses the petitioner's filing of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, detailing his immigration status as a native of the Democratic Republic of Congo, his entry into the U.S. without inspection, his release on recognizance, and his subsequent detention by ICE in Aurora, Colorado, classified under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).

The practical implications for compliance officers are minimal as this is a specific court ruling on an individual's habeas corpus petition. It pertains to the legal processes surrounding immigration detention and asylum claims. No immediate actions are required for general compliance programs, but legal counsel may need to review the specifics of the ruling if similar cases arise within their organization's scope.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Dieu-Benit Basuki Liyanza v. Juan Baltazar, Warden, GEO Aurora Contract Detention Facility, in his official capacity, et. al.

District Court, D. Colorado

Citations: None known
Docket Number: 1:26-cv-00559
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Opinion
Authorities (0)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (8.4K)
PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 26-cv-00559-PAB

DIEU-BENIT BASUKI LIYANZA,

Petitioner,

JUAN BALTAZAR, Warden, GEO Aurora Contract Detention Facility, in his official
capacity, et. al.,

Respondents.                                                         

                        ORDER                                        

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Dieu-Benit Basuki Liyanza’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1]. Respondents filed a response.

Docket No. 7. Petitioner filed a reply. Docket No. 11.

I. BACKGROUND1

Petitioner is a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Docket
No. 1 at 7, ¶ 15. On or about April 25, 2024, petitioner entered the United States
without inspection near San Luis, Arizona. Id. at 8, ¶ 16. Petitioner was released from
the Department of Homeland Security’s custody on his own recognizance. Id.

Petitioner has a pending application for asylum. Id., ¶ 18. On February 9, 2026,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took petitioner into custody while he was

1 The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

in Aurora, Colorado. Id., ¶ 20. ICE placed petitioner in removal proceedings and
classified his detention as being controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (b)(2). Id. at 8-9, ¶ 21.

On February 11, 2026, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docket No. 1. Petitioner brings a claim for violation of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (the “INA”) under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226,

violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and violation of petitioner’s Fifth
Amendment right to Due Process. Id. at 12-19. Petitioner requests, among other
things, that the Court order respondents to provide petitioner with a bond hearing
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (a). Id. at 20-21.

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 12-17; Docket No. 7 at 7-14. 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 15, ¶¶ 40-41. Because he believes
that § 1226 applies, petitioner argues that respondents must provide him with a bond
hearing. See id. at 20-21. 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 being admitted or paroled. Docket No. 7 at 7-14. Respondents claim
that petitioner is therefore not entitled to a bond hearing and is subject to mandatory
detention. See 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 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
*1-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 2025). Each time, the Court has ruled that the petitioner’s
detention is governed by § 1226. Id.

Respondents identify no reasons why this case differs from the previous cases

the Court has already ruled on. See generally Docket No. 7. The Court finds no
distinguishing material facts between this case and Alfaro Orellana. Thus, the Court will
grant the habeas petition for the same reasons it did in Alfaro Orellana. 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.”

lll. CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that petitioner Dieu-Benit Basuki Liyanza’s Petitioner 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 18, 2026.
BY THE COURT:

                                     PHILIP A. BRIMMER 
                                     United States District Judge 

 ? 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 remaining 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)”).