govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_26-cv-00434-1

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
Charlie Reymond Torres Siles, 
 
 Petitioner, 
 
 v. 
 
Warden, Butler County Detention 
Facility, et al., 
 
 Respondents. 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 
 

 
 
Judge Susan J. Dlott 
 
 
Order Granting Habeas Petition and 
Denying as Moot Motion to Dismiss
 
 This matter is before the Court on the Petit ion for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas 
Petition”) and the Emergency Motion for Immediate Release or Bond Hearing (“Emergency 
Motion”) both filed by Petitioner Charlie Reymon Torres Siles, who is proceeding pro se. 
(Docs. 1, 2.) Federal Respondents filed a Return of Writ. (Doc. 13.) 
 Also pending before the Court is the unoppos ed Motion to Dismiss filed by the Warden 
of the Butler County Correctional Complex. (Doc. 7.) 
I. 
 Torres Siles, a native and citizen of Nicaragua , entered the United States in March 2019. 
(Doc. 2 at PageID 14; Doc. 13-1 at PageID 111.) He was taken into custody by a Department of 
Homeland Security (“DHS”) Border Patrol agent after entering the country. (Doc. 13-2 at 
PageID 114.) DHS initiated removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(“INA”) § 240, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, on March 27, 2019. (Doc. 13-1 at PageID 111.) DHS charged 
Torres Siles with a violation of INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for being “an 
alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United 
States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General.” (Id.) DHS 
Case: 1:26-cv-00434-SJD Doc #: 15 Filed: 05/14/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 
 
released him on his own recognizance due to space limitations. (Doc. 13-2 at PageID 114.) 
 Torres Siles filed an Application for Asyl um and for Withholding of Removal during or 
before January 2021. (Doc. 3 at PageID 84.) An Immigration Judge ordered him removed to 
Nicaragua on December 10, 2024, but his asylum request and removal proceedings remain 
pending. (Doc. 13-3 at PageID 115; Doc. 13-8.) He was re-detained by ICE on April 2, 2026 
after serving approximately three months in jail for failure to comply with a police officer in 
Hamilton County, Ohio. (Doc. 13-4 at PageID 119; Doc. 13-7 at PageID 125.) 
 Torres Siles filed his Habeas Petition a nd Emergency Motion on May 1, 2026 requesting 
a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. (Docs. 1, 2.) After Torres Siles filed his Habeas 
Petition, but before the Federal Respondents filed their Return of Writ, the Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals issued a decision on May 11, 2026 that is dispositive in this matter. The Sixth Circuit 
held that noncitizens like Torres Siles, who are not currently seeking admission or lawful entry 
into the United States, are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(A)(2). 
Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, No. 25-1965, 1969, 1978, 1982, — F.4th —, 2026 WL 1283891, at 
*3, 11 (6th Cir. May 11, 1973). Instead, such noncitizens already present in the United States are 
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and entitled to a bond hearing. Id. at *3, 11, 13. 
 Federal Respondents concede that Lopez-Campos is controlling and that Torres Siles is 
entitled to a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.1 The Court holds on the authority of 
Lopez-Campos that Federal Respondents are violating Torres Siles’s statutory rights under the 
INA and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by detaining him without a bond 
 
1 Federal Respondents suggest that Torres can request a bond hearing in the immigration proceedings and that a 
bond hearing will be required. (Doc. 13 at PageID 108–109.) However, they also acknowledge that they are 
considering their options to appeal the Lopez-Campos decision. (Id. at PageID 109.) Given the uncertainty how 
Federal Respondents will proceed, the Court will rule on the pending Habeas Petition without requiring 
administrative exhaustion. 
 
Case: 1:26-cv-00434-SJD Doc #: 15 Filed: 05/14/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 
 
hearing. 2026 WL 1283891, at *3, 11, 13.2 
II. 
 The Habeas Petition (Doc. 1) a nd Emergency Motion (Doc. 2) are GRANTED. The 
Court ORDERS that within eleven days of entry of this Order, Federal Respondents shall either 
(1) provide Torres Siles with a due process compliant, individualized bond redetermination 
hearing before an Immigration Judge; or (2) release Torres Siles from custody. If Federal 
Respondents choose to provide a bond hearing in lieu of releasing Torres Siles from custody, 
then: 
(1) Federal Respondents shall provide a copy of this Order to the Immigration Judge 
before any hearing; 
(2) the Immigration Judge shall have jurisdiction over the matter and be empowered 
to grant bond; 
(3) Federal Respondents shall bear the burden of persuasion to justify Torres Siles’s 
continued detention and adduce clear and convincing evidence that Torres Siles is 
a danger to the community or a risk of flight. See Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133, 
155 (2d Cir. 2024) (setting forth evidentiary standard), reh’g en banc denied (Oct. 
24, 2025); Soto-Medina v. Lynch, No. 1:25-CV-1704, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2026 
WL 161002, at *9–11 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 21, 2026) (same); Azalyar v. Raycraft, 
814 F.Supp.3d 926, 935 (S.D. Ohio 2026) (same); and 
(4) the Immigration Judge shall consider whether less restrictive alternatives to 
detention can reasonably address the Government’s interest, as well as Torres 
Siles’s “ability to pay when setting any bond amount.” M.P.L. v. Arteta, No. 25-
CV-5307, 2025 WL 2938993, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2025). 
The Court further ORDERS that within fourteen days of entry of this Order, Federal 
Respondents shall file a report informing the Court whether and when a due process compliant, 
bond redetermination hearing was held or whether and when Torres Siles was released from 
custody. 
 
2 This Court had reached the same conclusion in materially analogous cases prior to Lopez-Campos. See, e.g., 
Ramirez Quintana v. Lynch, 1:25-cv-919, 2026 WL 746359 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 17, 2026); Valdez Lopez v. Raycraft, 
No. 1:26-cv-68, 2026 WL 900063 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 2, 2026); Rocha Gonzalez v. Lynch, No. 1:26-cv-77, 2026 WL 
962004 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 9, 2026). To be clear, the Court would hold the same in this case even if the Lopez-Campos 
decision had not been issued. 
Case: 1:26-cv-00434-SJD Doc #: 15 Filed: 05/14/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 
 
 Finally, the Butler County Sheriff’ s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
S/Susan J. Dlott 
Susan J. Dlott 
United States District Judge 
 
 
Case: 1:26-cv-00434-SJD Doc #: 15 Filed: 05/14/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight