Fanny Ottoman Sanchez Sabillon and Jose Emanuel Melgar Pacheco v. Kenneth Barnett, John Rife, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, and Todd Blanche

Fanny Ottoman Sanchez Sabillon and Jose Emanuel Melgar Pacheco v. Kenneth Barnett, Civil Action No. 3:26-0292 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 30, 2026) · United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · April 30, 2026 · No. 3:26-0292

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted Fanny Ottoman Sanchez Sabillon and Jose Emanuel Melgar Pacheco’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that their detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225(b)(2), and violated due process because they were detained without an individualized custody determination. The court ordered their prompt release, return of seized property, and prohibited re-arrest absent specified circumstances.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Writing for the Court
Robert C. Chambers
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Decision date
April 30, 2026
Docket number
3:26-0292
Procedural posture
Petitioners sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 from their immigration detention. After briefing, the parties agreed that a scheduled show-cause hearing was unnecessary. The court granted the amended petition and ordered petitioners released.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the § 2241 habeas petition and the legality of petitioners' detention based on the briefing and record.
Precedential value
unknown
Parties
Fanny Ottoman Sanchez Sabillon, Jose Emanuel Melgar Pacheco v. Kenneth Barnett, John Rife, Todd M. Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Todd Blanche
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

immigration detentionprocedural due processstatutory interpretationcivil procedureremedies

Practice areas

immigrationhabeas corpusconstitutional lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), 1252(b)(9), and 1252(g).
  2. Whether petitioners' detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
  3. Whether detention without an individualized custody determination violated petitioners' due process rights.
  4. Whether release, rather than merely a bond hearing, was appropriate relief.

Holdings

  1. The court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review petitioners' challenge to the legality of their physical custody.
  2. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) does not govern an undocumented individual who resides in and is arrested within the interior of the United States and is not seeking admission.
  3. Petitioners' detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and their detention without an individualized custody determination violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
  4. Release was appropriate relief, and a bond hearing was not required as the substitute remedy.

Key quotations

This Court’s interpretation is that Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to an undocumented individual who is both an “applicant for admission” and “seeking admission.”
Thus, Petitioners are being subjected to detention in violation of their due process rights.

Factual background

Petitioners, residents of Leon, West Virginia, were arrested on April 25, 2026, near Winfield, West Virginia, following a traffic stop. ICE officers transported them to the ICE office in Poca, West Virginia, charged them as inadmissible, and served them with Notices to Appear. They were then transported to Cambria County Prison in Pennsylvania, where they remained detained. The court treated them as individuals already residing in the interior of the United States who were not seeking admission.

Procedural history

Petitioners filed an amended verified petition challenging their civil confinement. The Government opposed the petition on jurisdictional and statutory grounds, arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) governed detention and that the court lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Without holding the scheduled hearing, the court rejected those arguments, granted habeas relief, and ordered immediate release and related relief.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…