Dieu-Benit Basuki Liyanza v. Juan Baltazar, Warden, GEO Aurora Contract...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 26-cv-00559-PAB DIEU-BENIT BASUKI LIYANZA, Petitioner, v. JUAN BALTAZAR, Warden, GEO Aurora Contract Detention Facility, in his official capacity, et. al., Respondents.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Dieu-Benit Basuki Liyanza’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1]. Respondents filed a response.

Docket No. 7. Petitioner filed a reply. Docket No. 11.

I. BACKGROUND1 Petitioner is a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Docket No. 1 at 7, ¶ 15. On or about April 25, 2024, petitioner entered the United States without inspection near San Luis, Arizona. Id. at 8, ¶ 16. Petitioner was released from the Department of Homeland Security’s custody on his own recognizance. Id. Petitioner has a pending application for asylum. Id., ¶ 18. On February 9, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took petitioner into custody while he was The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. in Aurora, Colorado. Id., ¶ 20. ICE placed petitioner in removal proceedings and classified his detention as being controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Id. at 8-9, ¶ 21.

On February 11, 2026, petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docket No. 1. Petitioner brings a claim for violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the “INA”) under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225 and 1226, violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and violation of petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right to Due Process. Id. at 12-19. Petitioner requests, among other things, that the Court order respondents to provide petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at 20-21.

II. ANALYSIS The parties disagree on whether petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226 or 8 U.S.C. § 1225. Id. at 12-17; Docket No. 7 at 7-14. Petitioner contends that his detention should be controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because § 1226(a) applies to the detention of noncitizens, like petitioner, who previously entered and are now residing within the United States. Docket No. 1 at 15, ¶¶ 40-41. Because he believes that § 1226 applies, petitioner argues that respondents must provide him with a bond hearing. See id. at 20-21. Respondents, however, contend that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to noncitizens like petitioner who are present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Docket No. 7 at 7-14. Respondents claim that petitioner is therefore not entitled to a bond hearing and is subject to mandatory detention. See id. On many occasions, this Court has analyzed whether § 1225 or § 1226 applies to petitioners who were detained when already present in the United States without inspection and who face removal proceedings. See Moncada-Hernandez v. Trump, No. 26-cv-00436-PAB, 2026 WL 472744, at *2-3 (D. Colo. Feb. 19, 2026); De La Cruz v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00360-PAB, 2026 WL 439217, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 16, 2026); Gabriel-Morales v. Bondi, No. 26-cv-00392-PAB, 2026 WL 415597, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb.

13, 2026); Gonzalez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv-00297-PAB, 2026 WL 415600, at *1-2 (D.

Colo. Feb. 13, 2026); Hernandez-Redondo v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-03993-PAB, 2026 WL 290989, at *2 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2026); Armenta v. Noem, No. 26-cv-00236-PAB, 2026 WL 274634, at *1-5 (D. Colo. Feb. 3, 2026); Portillo Martinez v. Baltazar, No. 26-cv- 00106-PAB, 2026 WL 194163, at *2-5 (D. Colo. Jan. 26, 2026); Garcia-Perez v. Guadian, No. 25-cv-04069-PAB, 2026 WL 89613, at *2-4 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2026); Alfaro Orellana v. Noem, No. 25-cv-03976-PAB, 2025 WL 3706417, at *2-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 22, 2025); Florez Marin v. Baltazar, No. 25-cv-03697-PAB, 2025 WL 3677019, at *1-4 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 2025). Each time, the Court has ruled that the petitioner’s detention is governed by § 1226. Id. Respondents identify no reasons why this case differs from the previous cases the Court has already ruled on. See generally Docket No. 7. The Court finds no distinguishing material facts between this case and Alfaro Orellana. Thus, the Court will grant the habeas petition for the same reasons it did in Alfaro Orellana. Because there is no evidence that petitioner has been provided a bond hearing, his current detention violates § 1226(a). The Court will grant the habeas petition on the § 1226 claim and will order respondents to provide petitioner a bond hearing within seven days of the date of this order.” lll. CONCLUSION Therefore, it is ORDERED that petitioner Dieu-Benit Basuki Liyanza’s Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that respondents shall provide petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within seven days of the date of this Court's order. It is further ORDERED that within five days of petitioner's bond hearing, the parties shall file a status report indicating whether the bond hearing was held and whether bond was granted or denied.

DATED March 18, 2026.

BY THE COURT: PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge ? Because the Court will grant the habeas petition on the basis of the 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) claim, it will not reach petitioner's remaining claims. See Hernandez v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-03094-CNS, 2025 WL 2996643, at *8 (D. Colo. Oct. 24, 2025) (‘the Court declines to adjudicate Petitioner's due process claim on the merits at this time because the Court grants the relief Petitioner seeks based on the applicability of § 1226(a)”).