Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JORGE PEDROSO RIVERO,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00349-KG-KRS
FNU LNU, Warden, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Jorge Pedroso Rivero’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas
petition. Doc. 1, and the Government’s response, Doc. 10. Because Petitioner’s challenge
presents purely legal questions, the Court declines to hold a hearing, 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and
denies the petition without prejudice for the reasons below.
I. Background
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Cuba, entered the United States in 2016 at a port of
entry near Laredo, Texas. Doc. 1 at 2. At that time, he sought asylum based on a fear of
returning to Cuba and was paroled into the United States for a two-year period to pursue relief
under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act. Doc. 10-1 at 2.
In 2018, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed following an arrest for
aggravated assault. Id. The Cuban government refused to accept him for repatriation. Id.
On July 11, 2025, Petitioner was convicted of shoplifting. Id. at 3. He was thereafter
transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. Id. Petitioner is
included on a list of Cuban nationals whom the Cuban government has declined to accept for
repatriation. Id.
Case 2:26-cv-00349-KG-KRS Document 13 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 3

2
In January 2026, Petitioner was served with a Notice of Removal to a third country—
Mexico. Id. Petitioner refused to sign the notice and stated that he “would not go anywhere but
Cuba.” Id. He alleges he “never consented to removal nor signed any voluntary departure
documents.” Doc. 1 at 2. He now contends that his continued detention violates the due process
framework articulated in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Id.
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.
III. Analysis
After reviewing the record and applicable legal authority, the Court concludes that
Petitioner fails to meet the standards set out in Zadvydas and that his petition is therefore denied
without prejudice.
“[T]he Government ordinarily secures” a noncitizen’s removal during the 90 days after
issuing a final order for the person to be removed. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682; see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(1). During that 90-day removal period, the noncitizen is typically detained. Zadvydas,
533 U.S. at 682. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C), the 90-day removal period “shall be extended”
if the noncitizen “fails or refuses to make timely application in good faith for travel or other
documents necessary to [his] departure or conspires or acts to prevent [his] removal.” Thus,
where a noncitizen’s own conduct prevents execution of a final order of removal, the statutory
removal period is tolled, and continued detention is authorized. Id.
Case 2:26-cv-00349-KG-KRS Document 13 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 3

3
The record indicates that Petitioner’s continued detention stems from his refusal to
cooperate with removal to a third country. The Government asserts that Mexico is willing to
accept Petitioner upon completion of the necessary documentation and that his noncompliance is
the sole impediment to effectuating removal. Doc. 10-1 at 2. Petitioner alleges that he “never
consented to removal nor signed any voluntary departure documents.” Doc. 1 at 2. Because
Petitioner’s conduct is preventing execution of the removal order, the removal period is extended
by operation of statute, and continued detention is authorized during that extended period.
Zadvydas v. Davis is not implicated because removal remains reasonably foreseeable.
IV. Conclusion
Petitioner’s § 2241 petition (Doc. 1) is denied without prejudice.
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-00349-KG-KRS Document 13 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 3