Nan Lin v. Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

NAN LIN,

Petitioner, v.

Case No. 1:26-cv-01216-MIS-JFR MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the

U.S. Department of Homeland Security;

TODD M. LYONS; Acting Director of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

DAVID EASTERWOOD, Field Office

Director of Enforcement and Removal

Operations, Minneapolis-St. Paul Field

Office, Immigration and Customs

Enforcement; MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA,

Field Office Director of Enforcement and

Removal Operations, El Paso Field Office,

Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and

WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center,

Respondents,

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Nan Lin’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), ECF No. 2, filed March 23, 2026. Respondents Markwayne Mullin, Todd M. Lyons, Dvid Easterwood, and Mary De Anda-Ybarra (“Federal Respondents”),1 filed a Response on May 4, 2026, ECF No. 16.

Counsel for Respondents acknowledges the facts of this case are “substantially similar” to Duhan v. Noem, No. 2:26-CV-00019-MIS-JFR, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20895 (D.N.M. Feb. 2, Respondent Dora Castro did not file a response or otherwise appear in this case. It has become standard practice in these habeas cases for the warden of the relevant detention center to either appear and adopt the federal respondents’ arguments, see, e.g., Intriago-Sedgwick v. Noem, Case No. 1:25-cv-01065-MIS-LF, Notice of Joinder In USA Respondents’ Forthcoming Claims and Defenses, ECF No. 11 (D.N.M. Dec. 3, 2025), or not appear at all, see Francisco v. Dedos, Case No. 1:25-cv-01229-MIS-GJF, Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition at 8, ECF No. 53 (D.N.M. Jan. 20, 2026).

2026), Resp. at 2, ECF No. 16, and that “this Court’s decision in Duhan v. Noem, would control the result here if the Court adheres to that decision as the facts are not materially distinguishable for purposes of the Court’s decision on the legal issue of which statutory provision authorizes Petitioner’s detention,” id. at 3. Counsel did not distinguish this case from other cases involving the detention of noncitizens already present in the United States—as opposed to noncitizens detained at a border crossing or port of entry—but argued that Petitioner is an applicant for admission seeking admission subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). Id. at 1-3.

Ultimately, the Court finds that the facts of this case are materially indistinguishable from prior cases the Undersigned Judge has decided involving habeas petitioners who were detained within the United States, rather than at a border crossing or port of entry, and adopts the findings contained in its Order Granting the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Lopez-Romero v. Lyons, Case No. 2:25-cv-0113-MIS-JHR, 2026 WL 92873 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2026). Briefly, the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) governs Petitioner’s detention, his continued detention without a bond hearing 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. 5.

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 and to entertain any motions for attorneys’ fees.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner Nan Lin’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED;

2. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from detention, however he shall remain in temporary custody for the sole purpose of effectuating his transport back to Minnesota;

3. Respondents SHALL NOT re-detain Petitioner without a pre-deprivation 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;

4. Respondents SHALL NOT impose any new condition of release; 5. Respondents SHALL file a Notice of Compliance with this Order; and 6. The Court will separately enter Final Judgment in favor of Petitioner but retain Jurisdiction over this matter to ensure compliance with this Order and to entertain any motions for attorneys’ fees.

MARGARET STRICKLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE