District Court Grants Habeas Relief, Ordering Bond Hearing for Detainee Under § 1226(a)

Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter ruled on April 6, 2026, that Martinez is entitled to a bond hearing within seven days, rejecting the government’s argument that he falls under the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).

Martinez, a Cuban citizen who entered the United States in April 2022, was detained by ICE after a traffic stop in January 2026. He has been held without bond since that time, despite having no criminal record and having complied with all prior immigration reporting requirements.

The government argued that Martinez was subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2). However, the court held that this statutory interpretation had been repeatedly rejected by judges in the District of Colorado, which have consistently determined that § 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to individuals who have already resided in the United States for years.

The court found that Martinez is properly detained under § 1226(a), which provides for discretionary detention and requires bond hearings at the outset. The court noted that Martinez has not received such a hearing, a failure that violates both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In reaching this conclusion, the court explicitly rejected the government’s reliance on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, finding it non-binding and unpersuasive compared to the dissenting opinion in that case. The court also declined to follow recent Eighth Circuit or other district court decisions that supported the government’s position.

The order further specifies that at the bond hearing, the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Martinez’s continued detention is justified due to dangerousness or flight risk. If the government fails to provide the hearing, Martinez must be immediately released.

The court denied Martinez’s request for attorney fees and costs without prejudice, noting that the request lacked the required affidavit and legal authority as mandated by local rules.