District of Colorado • 1:26-cv-04139

#1

Sep 03, 2026

APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number ACODC-11260868)Attorney Noel Lenin Quiroz Mujica added to party Leydi C Diaz(pty:pet), filed by Leydi C Diaz.(Quiroz Mujica, Noel) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#2

Sep 03, 2026

ADVISORY NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH COURT RULES/PROCEDURES re: 1 Complaint, filed by attorney Noel L. Quiroz. Attorney has used an incorrect signature format in violation of D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(a) and 4.3(d) of the Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Civil cases). DO NOT REFILE THE DOCUMENT. In the future, the filer must use the correct format for the signature block on all future documents. (Text Only Entry) (jberr, ) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#3

Sep 03, 2026

Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. Text Only Entry. (jberr, ) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#4

Sep 03, 2026

Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. (jberr, ) (Entered: 09/03/2026)

#5

Sep 03, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 9/3/2026. ORDERED that Respondents show cause within seven (7) days from the date of this Order why the Application for a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of Respondents' answer to this Order to Show Cause, Petitioner may file a reply. ORDERED that, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.2(d), the parties shall complete and file the Election Concerning Consent/Non-Consent to United States Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form, available from the Courts website atwww.cod.uscourts.gov, on or before September 10, 2026. (sphil, ) (Entered: 09/04/2026)

#11

Oct 05, 2026

NOTICE Petition is fully briefed by Petitioner Leydi Carolina Diaz Vargas (Quiroz Mujica, Noel) (Entered: 10/05/2026)

#12

Oct 06, 2026

ORDER: Before the Court is Leydi Carolina Diaz Vargas' 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner was lawfully admitted to the United States in October of 2020 as a B-2 visitor, with authorization to stay through April 19, 2021, however, she remained in the United States after that date without authorization. Dkt. 1, p.2. She has been detained at the Aurora Detention Facility since August 23, 2026. Id. On August 27, 2026, Petitioner was given a bond hearing. Id. at p.7. The immigration judge placed the burden of proof on Petitioner at the hearing. Id. at p.8. Petitioner argues Respondents violated her due process rights by improperly placing the burden on her at the bond hearing. Id. at p.13. In their Response, Respondents assert they "are not submitting a brief in opposition detailing the facts and circumstances of this case." Dkt. 9, p.1.Where, as here, "a party files a response to a motion but does not address all arguments which the motion raises, the party has effectively conceded the arguments which it does not address." Alfaro Herrera v. Baltazar, No. 1:25-cv-04014-CNS, 2026 WL 91470, at *5 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2026) (quoting Series 17-03-615 v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 785 F. Supp. 3d 904, 935 (D. Kan. 2025)); see also C1.G ex rel C.G. v. Siegfried, 38 F.4th 1270, 1282 (10th Cir. 2022). In addition, other courts in this District who have considered whether the burden of proof should be placed on Respondents at the bond hearing use the test set out in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). See Posada v. Mullin, No. 26-cv-03765-NYW, 2026 WL 2654041, at *2 (D. Colo. Sept. 9, 2026); see also Alfaro Herrera, 2026 WL 91470, at *11. Under the Mathews factors, the Court considers: (1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action, (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interests through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards, and (3) the government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335.In Guevara Garcia v. Bondi, No. 1:26-cv-01012-SKC, 2026 WL 835766 (D. Colo. Mar. 26, 2026), this Court analyzed the Mathews factors and concluded that the Government must bear the burden of proof at the bond hearing. The Court held "[t]he government must prove risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence, and it must prove dangerousness to any other person or to the community by clear and convincing evidence." Id. at *4. The Court incorporates its reasoning from Guevara Garcia regarding the burden of proof and agrees with other courts in this district that placing the burden of proof on the petitioner at the bond hearing is a violation of their due process rights.Accordingly, Leydi Carolina Diaz Vargas' 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas is GRANTED.IT IS ORDERED that, on or before October 13, 2026, Respondents shall provide Petitioner a bond hearing under § 1226(a). At the bond hearing, Respondents must prove risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence and dangerousness to any other person or the community by clear and convincing evidence. If the Petitioner is not provided a bond hearing by that date, Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody. On or before October 16, 2026, Respondents shall file a status report addressing the results of the bond hearing. SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 10/6/2026. Text Only Entry (skclc4) (Entered: 10/06/2026)

Oct 06, 2026

Order