Jose Salvador Rosas Araiza v. Todd Blanche, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; Markwayne Mullin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; David Venturella, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Mary De Anda-Ybarra, in her official capacity as El Paso Field Office Director; and Warden of the Torrance County Detention Center

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

JOSE SALVADOR ROSAS ARAIZA,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 1:26-cv-02533-MIS-JMR TODD BLANCHE, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; DAVID VENTURELLA, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; MARY DE ANDA- YBARRA, in her official capacity as El Paso Field Office Director; and WARDEN of the Torrance County Detention Center,

Respondents.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Jose Salvador Rosas Araiza’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed August 3, 2026. Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who has resided in the United States for over twenty-five years. Pet. at 1. In that time, he has maintained steady employment, established community ties in New Mexico, became the father of four U.S. citizen children. Id. at 1-2. Nevertheless, on May 26, 2026, Petitioner was detained by immigration officials. Id. at 3. He has remained in detention since then and is currently detained at Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, New Mexico. Id. Petitioner appears to argues his detention should be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and as such his continued detention without an opportunity to be heard violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Id. at 6-7. He seeks immediate release from detention. Id. at 8-9. On August 14, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Answer and Enjoining Transfer instructing Respondents to show cause why the Court should not grant Petitioner habeas relief. ECF No. 5. The Court specifically ordered Respondents to “specify whether the Court has already ruled on the legal issue(s) in this case and whether the holding in Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, No.

26-6019, 2026 WL 1876709, (10th Cir. June 30, 2026), requires relief.” Id. On August 24, 2026, the federal Respondents filed a “Response to [the] Petition.” ECF No. 7. Therein, they state: For purposes of this specific case, Respondents are not submitting a brief in opposition to the Petition detailing the facts and circumstances of this case. Respondents recognize that the Court may then decide to grant the Petition and award appropriate relief. Respondents submit that if the Court does grant the Petition, the appropriate relief would be an Order directing that Respondents, within seven days of this Court’s Order, provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), or else release Petitioner.

Id. at 1 (citing Santillan Quiroz v. Mullin, 180 F.4th 1226, 1251 n.13 (10th Cir. 2026)). “Where, as here, ‘a party files a response to a motion but does not address all arguments which the motion raises, the party has effectively conceded the arguments which it does not address.’” Alfaro Herrera v. Baltazar, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04014-CNS, 2026 WL 91470, at *5 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2026) (quoting Series 17-03-615 v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 3d 904, 935 (D. Kan. 2025)); see also C1.G on behalf of C.G. v. Siegfried, 38 F.4th 1270, 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) (holding that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s facial challenge as “abandoned” where plaintiff failed to include that challenge in his response to arguments raised in defendant’s motion to dismiss). Accordingly, the Court finds that Respondents’ non-opposition to the Petition constitutes a concession that Petitioner is being detained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to due process. In Santillan Quiroz, the Tenth Circuit held “that noncitizens who entered the United States and were thereafter detained in the interior of the country are usually subject to § 1226(a) (and thus eligible for bond), not § 1225(b)(2)(A).” 180 F.4th at 1237. That is the same situation presented here. Accordingly, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, his

continued detention without a bond hearing violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and, as such, he is entitled to habeas relief. The Court further finds that Respondents failed to articulate a legitimate interest in Petitioner’s continued detention and therefore orders his immediate release. See generally Resp., ECF No. 7. The Court further orders that Petitioner shall not be re-detained without a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk. Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its Order. IV. Conclusion Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED; 2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner Jose Salvador Rosas Araiza from custody/detention without restraints beyond those that existed before his unlawful detention; 3. Respondents shall return all seized property to Petitioner; 4. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger or flight risk; 5. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order. Merced Shviddnud MARGARET STRICKLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE