A.T. v. Baltazar

No. 26-cv-00925-NYW (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Colorado · April 9, 2026 · No. 26-cv-00925-NYW

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held that A.T., a detained Honduran noncitizen, was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or § 1226(c). The court concluded that her prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing violated procedural and substantive due process. Given the length and circumstances of the detention, including her deferred-action-related bona fide determination, the court ordered Respondents to transport A.T. to her residence and release her.

Holdings

  1. Neither 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) nor § 1225(b)(2) authorized A.T.'s detention because she was not an arriving noncitizen or presently and actively seeking admission. The default discretionary-detention framework of § 1226(a) therefore governed.
  2. A.T.'s continued detention for more than two years under § 1226(a) without an individualized bond hearing violated her Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights.
  3. By detaining A.T. for more than two years without a bond hearing and without an affirmative finding that she was a flight risk or danger to the community, the Government arbitrarily confined her in violation of substantive due process.
  4. Immediate release, rather than another bond hearing, was the appropriate remedy because a bond hearing would not adequately cure the constitutional violations caused by A.T.'s prolonged and apparently indefinite detention.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether A.T. was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), § 1225(b)(2), or the default discretionary-detention provision, § 1226(a).
  2. Whether the Government's failure to provide A.T. an individualized bond hearing during more than two years of detention violated procedural due process.
  3. Whether A.T.'s prolonged detention without an affirmative finding that she was a flight risk or danger to the community violated substantive due process.
  4. Whether immediate release, rather than a bond hearing, was the appropriate habeas remedy under the circumstances.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (29)

  • Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)(followed)
  • Soberanes v. Comfort, 388 F.3d 1305, 1310 (10th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687–88, 690, 701 (2001)(followed)
  • Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 287, 289, 297, 303 (2018)(followed)
  • Quispe-Ardiles v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-01382-MSN-WEF, 2025 WL 2783800, at *5, *7 (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2025)(followed)
  • Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 396 (2019)(followed)
  • Martinez v. Ceja, 760 F. Supp. 3d 1188, 1192–93 (D. Colo. 2024)(followed)
  • Rodriguez v. Bostock, 779 F. Supp. 3d 1239, 1246 (W.D. Wash. 2025)(followed)
  • Aroldo Rodriguez Diaz v. Merrick Garland, Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
  • Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, 802 F. Supp. 3d 297, 304 (D. Mass. Oct. 3, 2025)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 29.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…