Alejandro Badia Martinez v. Juan Baltazar - Immigration Habeas Corpus Bond Hearing Ordered

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

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

April 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Alejandro Badia Martinez v. Juan Baltazar, Warden of the Denver Contract Detention Facility, acting in his official capacity; Kelei Walker, Field Office Director or Acting Field Office Director, Denver Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, acting in her official capacity; Todd Lyons, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, acting in his official capacity; Markwayne Mullen, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, acting in his official capacity; Todd Blanche, Attorney General of the United States, acting in his official capacity; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Executive Office of Immigration Review; and Department of Homeland Security

District Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:26-cv-01313

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (1.7K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 26-cv-01313-NRN

ALEJANDRO BADIA MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

JUAN BALTAZAR, Warden of the Denver Contract Detention Facility, acting in his
official capacity;
KELEI WALKER, Field Office Director or Acting Field Office Director, Denver Field
Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, acting in her official capacity;
TODD LYONS, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
acting in his official capacity;
MARKWAYNE MULLEN, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland
Security, acting in his official capacity;
TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General of the United States, acting in his official capacity;
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT;
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW; and
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

Respondents.

ORDER

N. REID NEUREITER
United States Magistrate Judge

This case is before the Court on Alejandro Badia Martinez’s (“Petitioner”) Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner is a
detainee at the Denver Contract Detention Facility in Aurora, Colorado. ECF No. 1 ¶ 3.
He contends that the Respondents are improperly subjecting him to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (b)(2). Instead, he says, 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (a) governs his
detention. Because this is a fundamentally legal debate, there is no need for a hearing
on the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS
IN PART the Petition.
BACKGROUND
This case is one of numerous cases in this District and across the country
seeking habeas relief for immigrants detained within the United States and denied bond

hearings under a new interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226. E.g., Olivas v. Baltazar,
No. 26-cv-00777-NRN, 2026 WL 672897 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2026), Vasquez Gomez v.
Bondi, No. 26-cv-00489-NRN, 2026 WL 482677 (D. Colo. Feb. 20, 2026); Diaz Marquez
v. Baltasar, No. 26-cv-00293-CYC, 2026 WL 370864 (D. Colo. Feb. 10, 2026); Abarca
v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-04086-CYC, 2026 WL 309198 (D. Colo. Feb. 5, 2026);
Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-2 PAB, 2026 WL 290989 (D. Colo. Feb.
4, 2026); Jimenez Facio v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03592-CYC, 2025 WL 3559128 (D.
Colo. Dec. 12, 2025); Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 25-cv-02677-CNS, 2025 WL
2652880 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025); Batz Barreno v. Baltasar, No. 25-cv-03017-GPG-

TPO, 2025 WL 3190936 (D. Colo. Nov. 14, 2025); Loa Caballero v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-
03120-NYW, 2025 WL 2977650 (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2025); see also ECF No. 1 at 11–16
n.2 (citing many more cases nationwide).
Petitioner is a Cuban citizen who entered the United States near San Luis,
Arizona on April 16, 2022 to seek asylum. ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. He was detained by Customs
and Border Patrol (“CBP”) and released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) custody under an Order of Release on Recognizance on April 18, 2022. Id. ¶ 1.
While in removal proceedings, Petitioner has reported as instructed to ICE and
presented himself to immigration court as required. Id. ¶ 2. He has never been charged
with or convicted of any crime. Id. ¶ 3. On January 13, 2026, after leaving a gas station
without his headlights on, Petitioner was pulled over by a law enforcement officer and
subsequently detained. Id. He has been held without bond since. Id. ¶ 6.
Petitioner argues that his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 21. Petitioner asks

that he either be released from custody or granted a bond hearing within seven days. Id. at 22
Respondents maintain that Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under §
1225(b). Respondents’ statutory interpretation has been rejected by this Court as well
as several other judges in this District. See Vasquez Gomez, 2026 WL 482677, at *2;
Jimenez Facio, 2025 WL 3559128, at *2 (recognizing that “every decision in this District
addressing the issue” has determined that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to persons,
like Petitioner, who have already been residing in the United States for years). Indeed,
Respondents concede

that until the Tenth Circuit rules on this issue, this 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 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).
ECF No. 9 at 3–4.
ANALYSIS
A district court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to any person who
demonstrates he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This includes “[c]hallenges to immigration detention.”
Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004). The individual in custody
bears the burden of proving that their detention is unlawful. Walker v. Johnston, 312
U.S. 275, 286 (1941). To meet that burden, Petitioner argues, in part, that 8 U.S.C. §
1226 (a) applies to him; “that aliens detained under § 1226(a) receive bond hearings at
the outset of detention,” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (citing 8
C.F.R. §§ 236.1 (d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)); see 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (a) (providing for discretionary

detention); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (providing framework for requesting a bond
determination); and that he has received no such hearing.
As this Court and others in this District have repeatedly found in similar cases,
Petitioner has met his burden showing that his continued detention without a bond
hearing is unlawful. See Diaz Marquez, 2026 WL 370864, at *1 (“The Court remains
firmly convinced that it and the other judges in the District who have addressed this
issue have correctly decided those cases.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner
has a statutory right to a bond hearing that has not been provided, in violation of
Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights, see Jimenez Facio, 2025

WL 3559128, at *3 (“Resolution of the due-process question may be unnecessary[,] . . .
[b]ut to the extent it is, ‘the Court agrees with other courts that have, against
substantially similar factual backgrounds, concluded that detention without a bond
hearing amounts to a due process violation.’”) (quoting Garcia Cortes v. Noem, No. 25-
cv-02677-CNS, 2025 WL 2652880, at *4 (D. Colo. Sept. 16, 2025)); and the INA, see
Abanil v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-4029-WJM-STV, 2026 WL 100587, at *6 (D. Colo. Jan. 14,
2026) (“The Court joins its colleagues in this District and those courts across the country
that have concluded Respondents’ interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A) is contrary to the
INA’s plain text. As a consequence, the Court also concludes that Garcia Abanil’s
detention pursuant to § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the INA, and that he is instead properly
considered to be detained under § 1226(a).”).1
Moreover, the Court rejects Respondents’ reliance on the Fifth Circuit’s decision
in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026). As this Court has
repeatedly held, the Fifth Circuit’s decision is not binding authority in this District, and,

as to persuasiveness, the Court respectfully finds in Judge Douglas’s dissent a more
rigorous and compelling legal analysis of the relevant statutory provisions. See Vasquez
Gomez, 2026 WL 482677, at *2; Singh v. Baltazar, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL
352870, at *3–6 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2026) (explaining in detail why Buenrostro-Mendez
does not compel a contrary outcome).
Respondents also reference the Eighth Circuit's recent decision in Avila v. Bondi.
--- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026), and decisions of “some district
courts in this circuit have agreed with [their] interpretation of the statute.” ECF No. 9 at
3. But “they present no argument for why these non-binding decisions require the Court

to reverse itself on this legal question.” Gregorio Martinez Torres v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-
01062-CYC, 2026 WL 860425, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2026). Rather, Respondents
concede that “until the Tenth Circuit rules on this issue, this Court's prior ruling on this
issue would lead the Court to reach the same result here if the Court adheres to that

1 The Court need not address Petitioner’s other arguments. See Hernandez v.
Baltazar, No. 26-cv-0276-WJM-TPO, 2026 WL 304362, at *1 n.1 (D. Colo. Feb. 5, 2026)
(“Because the Court concludes that section 1226(a) controls here, it need not base its
Order on whether Alvarez Hernandez’s other arguments are availing.”); INS v.
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results
they reach.”).
decision . . . .” ECF No. 9 at 3–4. Having reviewed the cited decisions, the Court finds
no reason to reverse itself.
Lastly, Petitioner requests attorney fees and costs. ECF No. 1 at 14. But
D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.3(a) requires that “a motion for attorney fees . . . be supported by
affidavit,” and no such affidavit supported the request. Further, “a motion involving a

contested issue of law shall . . . be supported by a recitation of legal authority in the
motion.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). As a result, the Court denies this portion of the
Petition without prejudice. If the Petitioner chooses to file a motion for attorney fees, it
must comply with all applicable rules and provide legal authority for the request. See
L.G. v. Choate, 744 F. Supp. 3d 1172, 1187 (D. Colo. 2024).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition, ECF No. 1, is
GRANTED IN PART as follows.
It is further ORDERED that

1) Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. §
1226 (a) within seven days of this Order. At the bond hearing, Respondents bear
the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner’s
continued detention is justified due to dangerousness or flight risk. See Abanil, 2026 WL 100587, at *8 (“[T]the weight of authority in this District is clear: it is the
Government’s burden to ‘justify[ ] a noncitizen’s continued detention at a bond
hearing.’” (quoting Arauz v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03260-CNS, 2025 WL 3041840,
at *4 n.3 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2025)); Espinoza Ruiz v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03642-
CNS, 2025 WL 3294762, at *2 (D. Colo. Nov. 26, 2025) (ordering that the
Government would carry the burden for bond hearing under § 1226(a)); Loa
Caballero, 2025 WL 2977650, at *9 (“During such [bond] hearing, the
Respondents bear the burden of justifying detention.”). If Respondents to not
do not provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (a) as
required herein, Petitioner must be immediately released from detention;

2) Respondents are ENJOINED from denying bond to Petitioner on the basis that
he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (b)(2)(A); and
3) Respondents shall file a status report within three days of Petitioner’s bond
hearing, stating whether he has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond
was denied, the reasons for that denial.

Dated: April 6, 2026.
BY THE COURT:

N. Reid Neureiter
United States Magistrate Judge