Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JORGE PEDROSO RIVERO,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-349 KG/KRS
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
Of Homeland Security; PAMELA BONDI,
U.S. Attorney General; MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA,
Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal
Operations, El Paso Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and DORA CASTRO, WARDEN,
Otero County Processing Center,
Respondents.1
ORDER TO ANSWER AND ENJOINING TRANSFER OUT OF DISTRICT
Before the Court is the pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (Doc. 1) (Petition), filed on February 10, 2026, by Ariadna Indira Matos Alvarez on
behalf of detainee/Petitioner Jorge Pedroso Rivero. Petitioner is detained at the Otero County
Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico. He challenges his continued immigration
detention on the ground that his removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Ms. Alvarez states she
is Mr. Rivero’s partner and files on his behalf as his “Next Friend” because he has limited access
to legal resources. See (Doc. 4) (Affidavit by Ms. Alvarez). Also before the Court are
Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite (Doc. 2), and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3).
1 The pro se Petition names the Warden as a party Respondent, which is standard in non-immigration
cases. The Court adds the above-mentioned parties as additional Respondents in this case. See
Lowmaster v. Dir., Bureau of Prisons, 2024 WL 5135970, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 17, 2024) (“the Court
notes that it routinely substitutes the” proper parties as “respondent in habeas cases”); Danderson v. Page,
2024 WL 3913051, at *2 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2024) (substituting the proper party respondent in a habeas
case).
Case 2:26-cv-00349-KG-KRS Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 4

2
The Petition relies on Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), which holds that where
immigration officials are attempting to effectuate a removal, detention is presumptively
reasonable for six (6) months. 533 U.S. at 682. However, “[a]fter this 6-month period, once
the [petitioner] provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal
in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to
rebut [th]e showing” that the custody is unconstitutional. Id. at 701.
Here, Petitioner has been in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody
since July 9, 2025. (Doc. 1) at 2. Petitioner contends there is no significant likelihood of
removal because ICE has attempted and failed to remove him to Mexico on multiple occasions,
and Mexico and Cuba have refused to accept him. Id. Petitioner attaches a removal order
dated May 8, 2018. Id. at 13; cf. Summary Order in Bahadorani v. Bondi, No. 25-6177 (10th
Cir. Dec. 18, 2025) (Ordering a release where the removal order was entered in 2015, petitioner
spent prior time in immigration confinement, and petitioner was re-detained in 2025). Petitioner
asks the Court to order his immediate release. Id. at 3. Petitioner also seeks expedited
consideration of his Petition (Doc. 2, Motion to Expedite), and an order enjoining Respondents
from transferring him from this District during the pendency of his Petition (Doc. 3, Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order).
Having conducted an initial review of the pro se Petition, the Court finds Petitioner raises
a colorable challenge to detention. Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s Motion to
Expedite (Doc. 2) and orders Respondents to answer the Petition. The Clerk’s Office has
electronically served a copy of the Petition in this matter on all federal respondents by Notice of
Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF)
Case 2:26-cv-00349-KG-KRS Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 4

3
system. See (Doc. 5). The United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) shall answer the Petition
within ten (10) business days of entry of this Order and show cause why the requested relief
should not be granted. See Habeas Rules 1(b), 4 (courts have discretion to set a time for
respondents to answer a habeas petition). Petitioner may file an optional reply within five (5)
business days after the answer brief is filed.
Petitioner also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 3). The Motion
seeks an order enjoining Respondents from transferring Petitioner out of the District of New
Mexico and states that further transfers will impact his ability to litigate this habeas case. The
Court will grant the Motion to ensure a merits review. Respondents are enjoined from
transferring Petitioner outside the District of New Mexico during the pendency of this habeas
action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner’s Motion to Expedite (Doc. 2) is granted and the United States Attorney’s
Office must answer the Petition within ten (10) business days of entry of this Order and
show cause why the requested relief should not be granted;
2. If Petitioner wishes to file an optional reply, he must do so within five (5) business days
after Respondents’ response is filed;
3. Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3) is granted and the
Government is enjoined from transferring Petitioner from the District of New Mexico
while these proceedings remain pending, absent express written authorization from this
Court; and
Case 2:26-cv-00349-KG-KRS Document 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 4

4
4. The Clerk’s Office shall add the additional party Respondents set forth in the caption of
this Order to the docket of this case.
/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 7 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 4