Matin Bafteh v. Warden, Torrance County Detention Center; Mary De Anda-Ybarra, Field Office Director of the ICE El Paso Field Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations; Todd Blanche, Attorney General of the United States; and Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Opinion

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

MATIN BAFTEH,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 1:26-cv-02743-MIS-JMR WARDEN, Torrance County Detention Center; MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office Director of the ICE El Paso Field Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations; TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General of the United States; and MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

Respondents.

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

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Matin Bafteh’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed August 19, 2026. Petitioner is a citizen of Iran who fled his native country fearing political persecution and entered the United States on January 19, 2025. Pet. at 13. Shortly after entry, Petitioner presented himself to U.S. immigration officials and was taken to the Port Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos, Texas. Id. Petitioner has apparently been detained ever since and is currently detained at the Torrance County Detention Center in Estancia, New Mexico. Id. at 1, 14. Petitioner has filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Id. at 14. On June 10, 2025, an Immigration Judge denied those applications. Order of the Immigration Judge, June 10, 2025, ECF No. 1 at 20. On January 28, 2026, an Immigration Judge again denied Petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal. Order of the Immigration Judge, January 28, 2026, ECF No. 1 at 27. That denial is currently under appeal and has now been pending for over six months. Pet. at 14. Petitioner argues that his detention—which now exceeds 19 months— is excessively prolonged, has no foreseeable end, and violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Id. at 15-16. He seeks immediate release from detention. Id. at 17. On August 20, 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, if so, whether the facts are distinguishable from prior rulings.” Id. On August 25, 2026, the federal Respondents filed a “Response to [the] Petition.” ECF No. 8. 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 1-2 (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. The Court further finds that Petitioner’s prolonged detention violates his substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment for the reasons identified in Mardanpour v. Warden, No. 2:26-cv-00550, 2026 WL 963164, at *3-8 (D.N.M. Apr. 9, 2026), which the Court hereby adopts.

Briefly, Petitioner may not be “punished” without being accorded the substantive and procedural due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, Rodriguez-Fernandez v. Wilkinson, 654 F.2d 1382, 1387 (10th Cir. 1981); under the circumstances of this case, Petitioner’s indefinite, ongoing detention of over nineteen months, with no reasonably foreseeable end in sight,1 is excessive in relation to the Government’s legitimate, nonpunitive purpose of facilitating removal; and, therefore, Petitioner’s detention is punitive and a violation of his Fifth Amendment substantive due process rights, id.; see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699-701; Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d

1 As in Mardanpour, “Petitioner’s appeal to the BIA and, if unsuccessful there, to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, could take years.” 2026 WL 963164, at *6.

As the Department of Justice recently stated, after the Attorney General reduced the BIA’s size by nearly one half in early 2025, there has been an “unprecedented B[IA] caseload.” Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals, 91 Fed. Reg. 5267, 5270 (Feb. 6, 2026). Indeed, “between fiscal year 2015 and the end of fiscal year 2025, the B[IA]’s pending case load increased more than five-fold—from 37,285 pending appeals to 202,946 pending appeals,” leaving the BIA “at a point where, even were it to have additional resources and better management, . . . it would not be able to keep up with incoming filings while tackling the backlog in any meaningful way.” Id. (citing Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”), Adjudication Statistics: All Appeals Filed, Completed, and Pending (Nov. 18, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1344986/dl?inline [https://perma.cc/88C5-MU4N]). Thus, “the B[IA] largely functions now as simply a vessel for further delay of the eventual resolution of [a noncitizen’s] case.” Id. at 5271.

Segura Serrano v. Scott, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-01268-LK, 2026 WL 1674357, at *3 (W.D. Wash. 2026). In any event, Respondents present no evidence or argument that Petitioner’s removal is imminent in the reasonably foreseeable future. 386, 411-13 (6th Cir. 2003); Dominguez v. Warden, Case No. 1:26-cv-02310-MIS-GBW, 2026 WL 2186326, at *2 (D.N.M. July 29, 2026); Yang v. Warden, Case No. 2:26-cv-02266-MIS-GJF, 2026 WL 2186338, at * 2 (D.N.M. July 29, 2026); Pereira v. Ortiz, Case No. 1:26-cv-02158-MIS- GBW, 2026 WL 2110814, at *2 (D.N.M. July 22, 2026); Mardanpour, 2026 WL 963164, at *3-8; Rasoli v. Mullin, Case No. 2:26-cv-01460-MIS-SCY, 2026 WL 1662615, at *3-4 (D.N.M. June 9, 2026); Marquez v. Warden, Case No. 2:26-cv-01527-MIS-SCY, 2026 WL 1557180, at *2 (D.N.M. June 2, 2026); Ahmadi v. De Anda-Ybarra, Case No. 1:26-cv-00897-MIS-DLM, 2026 WL

1121981, at *3 (D.N.M. Apr. 24, 2026); Harutyunyan v. Lyons, Case No. 2:26-cv-01020-MIS- GBW, 2026 WL 1078958, at *1 (D.N.M. Apr. 21, 2026). Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s prolonged detention 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. 8. 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 Matin Bafteh from custody/detention; 3. Respondents shall return all of Petitioner’s seized property to Petitioner; 4. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner—absent a final order of removal— without a pre-deprivation hearing before a neutral Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); 5. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order.

MARGARET STRICKLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE