Dany Ernesto Reyes Lopez v. Pamela Jo Bondi, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DANY ERNESTO REYES LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Case No. 26-cv-0009-ABA PAMELA JO BONDI, et al., Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner Dany Ernesto Reyes Lopez alleges that he is a citizen of El Salvador who last entered the United States in or about 2009 and has lived in the country ever since. ECF No. 1 ¶ 16. On December 30, 2025, as he was on his way to work, Petitioner was detained by ICE officials. Id. ¶ 19. On January 2, 2026, Petitioner filed this action challenging his detention. Id. He contends that Respondents have improperly detained him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which should not apply to his detention. Id. ¶ 20. Therefore, the first question before the Court is whether Petitioner’s detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or § 1226. 8 U.S.C. § 1225 provides for mandatory detention—without a bond hearing—in certain specified circumstances. Conversely, § 1226 provides for discretionary detention of a noncitizen who, “[o]n a warrant,” was “arrested and detained” during the pendency of removal proceedings under § 1229a.

On January 15, 2026, the Parties filed a joint notice providing that “the factual and legal issues presented in the instant habeas petition do not differ in any material fashion from those presented in [Bautista Villanueva v. Bondi, et al.], No. 25-cv-4152- ABA, 2026 WL 100595 (D. Md. Jan. 14, 2026), and Villanueva Funes v. Noem, No. 25- cv-03860-TDC, 2026 WL 92860, ECF Nos. 13, 14.” ECF No. 7 at 1. Furthermore, the notice provided that “as such, unless the Court prefers further briefing on that issue, the Parties submit that this Court should incorporate the Respondents’ filings in Bautista Villanueva and Villanueva Funes into the record of this habeas action in lieu of further briefing.” Id. at 2.

For the same reasons stated in Bautista Villanueva, 2026 WL 100595, Petitioner is not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225. Accordingly, for the same reasons stated in Bautista Villanueva and as requested in the Parties’ Joint Notice, the Court is persuaded that the appropriate remedy for Respondents’ statutory violation is an order that Petitioner receive a bond hearing within 10 days of this Order.

For these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 2. Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not 8 U.S.C. § 1225; 3. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing consistent with 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d), 1003.19, & 1236.1(d); 4. Consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1), Petitioner shall file a request in Immigration Court seeking a bond hearing consistent with this Court’s Order; 5. Petitioner shall be provided with a bond hearing within 10 days of the date of this Order; 6. Petitioner’s bond hearing must be conducted by an Immigration Judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and in accordance with 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d), 1003.19, & 1236.1(d); 7. Any bond hearing must be conducted by an Immigration Court with jurisdiction, or with administrative control, over Petitioner’s detention and need not be conducted in Baltimore or Hyattsville; 8. If bond is granted and Petitioner is released, nothing in this Order precludes ICE from imposing reasonable conditions of release; 9. If a bond hearing is not held before an Immigration Judge within 10 days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner from custody; 10.If Petitioner is released before having a bond hearing, nothing in this Order precludes ICE from imposing reasonable conditions of release, including a requirement that he appear at a bond hearing at Immigration Court in Maryland; and 11. The parties SHALL FILE a joint status report within 14 days of this Order.

Date: January 16, 2026 _________/_s/_________ Adam B. Abelson United States District Judge