govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-2_26-cv-02476-2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
WESTERN DIVISION 
PEDRO ANTONIO ARDILA CORTES, 
Petitioner, 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
) 
No. 2:26-cv-02476-SHL-tmp 
v. 
CHRISTOPHER BULLOCK, New Orleans 
Field Office Director of Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and 
Removal Operations, 
Respondent. 
 
ORDER GRANTING PETITION 
 
 
 Before the Court is pro se Petitioner Pedro Antonio Ardila Cortes’s Petition for Writ of 
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed on April 27, 2026. (ECF No. 1.) He states 
that he “is a sixty-five-year-old Colombian national with no criminal history who has been held 
in civil detention since November 20, 2025, without ever having received an individualized bond 
hearing before a neutral decision-maker.” (Id. at PageID 1.) Ardila Cortes seeks an 
individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge or his immediate release. (Id. at 
PageID 8–9.) Respondent responded in opposition on May 3. (ECF No. 11.) Ardila Cortes 
replied on May 18. (ECF No. 13.) After the Court directed Respondent to update his position in 
light of the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 
1283891 (6th Cir. 2026) (ECF No. 12), Respondent conceded that Lopez-Campos “controls the 
outcome of this matter” (ECF No. 14 at PageID 68). 
BACKGROUND 
 Ardila Cortes is a citizen of Colombia who entered the United States on May 2, 2024, 
near San Diego, California, and lives in Memphis with his two adult daughters who are lawful PageID
<pageID>
2 
residents of the United States. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 4–5.) He fled Columbia 
after suffering repeated threats, extortion demands, and physical violence at the 
hands of Colombian police officers and armed non- state actors operating in 
coordination with them. On October 24, 2023, two uniformed police officers 
threatened him with death after he reported corruption. On November 21, 2023, he 
was deliberately struck by a white truck driven by individuals acting in concert with 
those officers. On April 22, 2024, two armed men entered his business, beat him, 
pointed a firearm at his head, and demanded extortion money. 
 
(Id. at PageID 3.) He has applied for asylum and for withholding of removal. (Id. at PageID 4.) 
He passed his credible fear interview. (Id.) 
ANALYSIS 
 Ardila Cortes challenges his detention, since November 20, 2025, “without any 
individualized bond hearing and without any determination by a neutral decision-maker that his 
continued detention is justified by flight risk or danger to the community.” (Id.) He seeks an 
individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge or his immediate release. (Id. at 
PageID 8–9.) 
 Respondent concedes that the Sixth Circuit’s holding in Lopez-Campos, 2026 WL 
1283891, “controls the outcome of this matter.” (ECF No. 14 at PageID 68.) That decision held 
“that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention scheme does not apply to ‘applicants for 
admission’ who are not actively ‘seeking admission.’” (Id. (citing Lopez-Campos, 2026 WL 
1283891, at *11).) 
Nevertheless, Respondent “maintains that the Court should require Petitioner to exhaust 
his administrative remedies.” (Id. at PageID 69 n.1 (citing McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 
144 (1992)).) However, as the Court has ruled in recent immigration habeas petitions, e.g., 
Lopez Soza v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 26-CV-02224, 2026 WL 1104329, at *3 (W.D. 
Tenn. Apr. 23, 2026), Petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies is EXCUSED. The PageID
<pageID>
3 
legal questions presented by the Petition are fit for prompt resolution, and exhaustion would be 
futile because Petitioner cannot seek meaningful and timely administrative relief. McCarthy, 
503 U.S. at 144 (explaining that where a statute is silent as to exhaustion, requiring exhaustion is 
within a court’s discretion); Contreras-Lomeli v. Raycraft, No. 25-cv-12826, 2025 WL 2976739, 
at *3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2025) (“Bond denial appeals ‘typically take six months or more to be 
resolved at the BIA.’” (citation omitted)). 
Respondent further contends that, “[i]n accordance with the remedy affirmed in Lopez-
Campos, if the Court does not first require exhaustion, the Court should order that Petitioner be 
provided a custody redetermination hearing within 10 business days, and if that does not occur, 
Petitioner should be released from custody.” (ECF No. 14 at PageID 69.) However, Petitioner 
“rightfully state[s] that [he has] a liberty interest to be free from detention.” Lopez-Campos, 
2026 WL 1283891, at *13. ICE’s decision to detain him without a bond hearing violated that 
liberty interest, which cannot be casually tossed aside. Thus, he is entitled to immediate release. 
See Villafranca Lara v. Ladwig, No. 26-CV-02079, 2026 WL 401204, at *10 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 
12, 2026) (“Because ICE purported to detain [Petitioner] under § 1225(b)(2)(A), which includes 
no provision for a bond hearing, the Court will not now order a bond hearing under § 1226(a).”). 
Therefore, consistent with Lopez-Campos and this Court’s decision in Villafranca Lara, 
2026 WL 401204, and after consideration of the record, the Petition is GRANTED. 
CONCLUSION 
 For the reasons stated above, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondent is ORDERED to 
release Petitioner immediately. Respondent is ENJOINED from pursuing Petitioner’s detention 
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Respondent is further ORDERED to file a Status Report with 
this Court within two business days, to certify compliance with this Order. PageID
<pageID>
4 
 IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of May, 2026. 
 s/ Thomas L. Parker 
 THOMAS L. PARKER 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight