Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
FREDY TEPEHUA-TLAPALTOTOLI,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00116-KG-GJF
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Fredy Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli’s Motion to
Enforce Judgment, Doc. 12, and the Government’s Response in Opposition, Doc. 11. Mr. Tepehua-
Tlapaltotoli contends that the bond hearing held after the Court’s prior order, Doc. 9, 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 bond hearing, the Court denies the
motion to enforce.1
I. Background
Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 2017
without inspection. Doc. 1 at 7. Upon entry, ICE detained Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli and placed
him in removal proceedings. Id. ICE ultimately released him after he posted a $25,000 bond. Id.
For the past eight years, he has remained compliant with his conditions of release and his next
immigration hearing is set for 2027. Id. at 2. In late 2025, DHS arrested Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli
and placed him in detention at the Otero County Immigration Processing Center in Chaparral, New
Mexico. Id. at 4.
1 The DAR of the Bond Hearing (Feb. 17, 2026) is on file with the Court and lodged at Doc.
14 (“Audio Recording”).
Case 2:26-cv-00116-KG-GJF Document 15 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 4

2
On February 13, 2026, the Court held that Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli’s redetention violates
the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Doc. 13 at 2. The Court ordered the Government to provide a bond hearing within seven days,
where the Government had the burden to justify his continued detention by clear and convincing
evidence, or else release him. Id. at 5.
An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) presided over the hearing on February 17, 2026. During the
hearing, the Government acknowledged that “the burden is on the Government” to show that Mr.
Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli “would be a danger or a flight risk.” Audio Recording at 3:50–3:55. The IJ
denied bond, finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli is a flight risk.
Id. at 10:16. Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli moves to enforce the Court’s prior order, arguing that the IJ
failed to shift the burden to the Government. See generally Doc. 10.
II. Standard of Review
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeks “release from unlawful physical confinement.”
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). Habeas corpus review is available if a noncitizen is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3); see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 687.
Case 2:26-cv-00116-KG-GJF Document 15 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 4

3
III. Analysis
The Court concludes that (A) it has jurisdiction to consider Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli’s
claim, and (B) the bond proceeding complied with this Court’s prior order.
A. The Court has jurisdiction to consider Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli’s motion.
Before reaching the merits, the Court must address the Government’s argument that it lacks
jurisdiction to consider Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli’s claim. See Tuck v. United Services Auto. Ass’n,
859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988) (a federal court has an independent obligation to assure itself of
subject matter jurisdiction). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), “[t]he Attorney General’s discretionary
judgment regarding the application of” 8 U.S.C. § 1226 is “not...subject to review,” and “[n]o court
may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the
detention or release of any alien.” But § 1226(e) does not eliminate “habeas jurisdiction over
constitutional claims or questions of law.” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 987 (9th Cir.
2017); see also Miranda v. Garland, 34 F.4th 338, 351 (4th Cir. 2022) (same). Accordingly,
§1226(e) does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction to consider “constitutional challenge[s]” to the
“procedures adopted by the Attorney General for all detention decisions under § 1226(a).”
Miranda, 34 F.4th at 352; see also Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200–02 (9th Cir.
2011) (collecting cases and holding that § 1226(e) does not limit federal court’s jurisdiction to
review bond hearing determinations for constitutional claims or legal error). This framework also
reflects a district court’s authority to ensure compliance with its own habeas orders. See
Hechavarria v. Whitaker, 358 F. Supp. 3d 227, 235–36 (W.D.N.Y. 2019) (stating that, when
addressing a motion to enforce a prior order granting conditional habeas relief, “the Court is not
reviewing a discretionary judgment of the IJ under § 1226,” but “determining whether the order it
issued...was followed”).
Case 2:26-cv-00116-KG-GJF Document 15 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Under these principles, the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the IJ complied with
the due process requirements here. Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli does not challenge the immigration
judge’s discretionary weighing of the evidence or the ultimate bond determination. Rather, he
raises a constitutional claim that the immigration judge failed to follow the due process
requirements set forth by this Court when denying bond.
B. The bond hearing comported with due process.
Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli’s bond hearing satisfied the due process requirements set forth in
this Court’s prior order. Under ordinary circumstances, “the burden” at a § 1226 bond hearing “is
on the noncitizen” to show that detention is unwarranted. Salazar v. Dedos, 2025 WL 2676729, at
*3 (D.N.M.). In granting Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli’s habeas petition, however, this Court held that
due process required shifting that burden to the Government. Doc. 13 at 2. Nothing in the
recording demonstrates that the IJ failed to apply that burden-shifting framework. To the contrary,
both parties acknowledged that the burden rested with the Government. This Court’s jurisdiction
does not extend to reweighing the IJ’s bond determination once those procedures were followed.
Rather, a review of the bond determination is for the Board of Immigration Appeals.
IV. Conclusion
Mr. Tepehua-Tlapaltotoli’s Motion to Enforce this Court’s prior habeas order 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 2:26-cv-00116-KG-GJF Document 15 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 4