Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOSE SAMUEL GUACHO LEMA,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:26-cv-485-KG-GJF
TODD LYONS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jose Guacho Lema’s Motion to Enforce
Judgment, Doc. 13, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 15. Petitioner argues that the bond
hearing held after the Court’s prior Order, Doc. 11, did not comply with the due process
requirements set forth in that Order. After reviewing the parties’ submissions and a digital audio
recording (“DAR”) of the proceeding, the Court denies the motion to enforce.1
I. Background
Petitioner, a 43-year-old Ecuadorian citizen, entered the United States in June 2023.
Doc. 1 at 4. Petitioner has no criminal history in the United States and has a wife and child in
Ecuador. Id. On January 10, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security arrested Petitioner in
St. Paul, Minnesota. Id. at 5. Petitioner remains detained at the Torrance County Detention
Facility in New Mexico. Doc. 10 at 1.
Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, and the Court concluded
that Petitioner’s detention absent a bond hearing violated the Immigration and Nationality Act
1 The DAR of the Bond Hearing (April 2, 2026) is on file with the Court and lodged at
Doc. 16 (the “Audio Recording”).
Case 1:26-cv-00485-KG-GJF Document 17 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
(“INA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Doc. 11 at 2, 4. The Court ordered
the Government to provide a bond hearing within seven days, at which it had the burden to
justify his continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 4.
An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) presided over the hearing on April 2, 2026. At the outset,
the IJ stated: “The Government has the burden of proof.” Audio Recording at 1:36. The
Government argued that Petitioner is a flight risk because he has “no clear ties to the United
States” and “no family” in the country. Id. at 2:00. The IJ denied bond, stating that “the
Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is
justified.” Id. at 3:59. The IJ also noted that Petitioner “is a recent arrival.” Id. at 4:21.
The IJ’s written order stated that:
The Department of Homeland [Security] has justified the Respondent’s continued
detention by clear and convincing evidence. The Respondent has been ordered
removed. The Respondent’s I-589 application was pretermitted because it does
not set forth a viable claim for relief. The Respondent is a recent arrival to the
United States.
Doc. 14-1 at 1.
Petitioner argues that the IJ intentionally disregarded factual findings and failed to apply
the correct legal standard. Doc. 13 at 2. The Government opposes the motion. Doc. 15.
II. Analysis
Petitioner’s bond hearing satisfied the due process requirements set forth in this Court’s
prior order. Under ordinary circumstances, “the burden” at a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226 “is on the noncitizen” to show that detention is unwarranted. Salazar v. Dedos, 2025 WL
2676729, at *3 (D.N.M.). In granting Petitioner’s habeas petition, however, this Court held that
due process required shifting that burden to the Government. Doc. 11 at 5.
Case 1:26-cv-00485-KG-GJF Document 17 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
The record demonstrates that the bond hearing complied with the Court’s directive.
During the hearing, the IJ acknowledged tis Court’s standard, stating “[t]he Government has the
burden of proof.” Audio Recording at 1:36. The IJ ultimately found that DHS met its burden.
Id. at 3:59. Therefore, the record reflects that the IJ applied the correct standard.
To the extent Petitioner contends that the IJ did not meaningfully weigh the record, those
arguments challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, not the procedures employed at the hearing.
The Court’s review is limited to whether the procedures required by due process were afforded;
it does not extend to reweighing the evidence or revisiting the IJ’s discretionary bond
determination. See 8 U.S.C. §1226(e). Petitioner may challenge the substance of the bond
decision through the BIA.
III. Conclusion
Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce this Court’s prior habeas Order, Doc. 13, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its
authenticity, please refer to the Digital File
Stamp on the NEF (Notice of Electronic
Filing) accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access
system.
Case 1:26-cv-00485-KG-GJF Document 17 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 3