Christian Daniel De La Cruz-Vasquez v. Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, in her official capacity; Robert Guadiana, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Field Office Director for the Colorado Field Office, in his official capacity; Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; and Juan Baltasar, Warden of GEO Group Aurora Inc, in his official capacity

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: February 23, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00270
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case No. 26-cv-00270-CYC

CHRISTIAN DANIEL DE LA CRUZ-VASQUEZ,

Petitioner, v.

PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, in her official capacity; ROBERT GUADIAN, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Field Office Director for the Colorado Field Office, in his official capacity; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; and JUAN BALTASAR, Warden of GEO Group Aurora Inc, in his official capacity;

Respondents. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ Cyrus Y. Chung, United States Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner Christian Daniel De La Cruz-Vasquez, a detainee at the GEO-ICE immigration detention facility in Aurora, Colorado, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the respondents, who control that facility, are improperly subjecting him to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). ECF No. 1 (the “Petition”). Instead, he says, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs his detention vel non. 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 under a new interpretation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226. E.g., Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-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). The petitioner seeks release or, in

the alternative, a bond hearing, and legal fees and costs. Id. at 2, 6, and 14. The petitioner, a citizen of Peru, has lived in the United States since he entered without inspection in August 2022. ECF No. 1 at 2, 5–6, 8–9,11. As a result, he had been present in the United States for years before he was encountered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers on December 8, 2025, after reporting to the Florence, Colorado ICE Sub-Office for a scheduled appointment. Id. at 2, 6, and 8. The petitioner argues that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and that he has no criminal record, and the respondents do not offer any evidence of a criminal history that requires mandatory detention. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Instead, they maintain that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). ECF No. 9 at 1–3.

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, the petitioner argues 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 his continued detention premised on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) violates his due process rights and the Immigration and Nationality Act. ECF No. 1 at 2, 6–11. The Court has previously resolved this legal question in favor of a

similarly situated petitioner. Jimenez Facio, 2025 WL 3559128, at *1–4. The respondents recognize this, but “respectfully disagree with that ruling.” ECF No. 9 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 and incorporates its analysis from Jimenez Facio. 2025 WL 3559128, at *1–4. To the extent the respondents contend that the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, --- F. 4th ----, 2026 WL 323330, at *5–10 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2026), makes a difference, see ECF No. 11 at 2–3, Judge Sweeney’s thorough rebuttal of that divided decision provides a solid foundation to maintain the consensus that exists in this District. See Singh v. Baltazar, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2026 WL 352870, at *3–6 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2026). Accordingly, the Court finds that the petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and his

continued detention is therefore a violation of due process. There is a final matter. The petitioner requests attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 1 at 12. 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 and DENIED without prejudice in part. It is further ORDERED that (1) the respondents shall provide the petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of this Order; (2) the respondents are ENJOINED from denying bond to the petitioner on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); and (3) the respondents shall file a status report within five days of the petitioner’s bond hearing, stating whether he has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial. Entered and dated this 23rd day of February, 2026, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

Cyrus Y. Chung United States Magistrate Judge