Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ALEJANDRO RAMON RAMIREZ SARATE,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00463-KG-SCY
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Alejandro Ramon Ramirez Sarate’s Motion to
Enforce Judgment, Doc. 11, and the Government’s Response in Opposition, Doc. 12. Mr. Ramirez
Sarate contends that the bond hearing held after the Court’s prior order, Doc. 10, did not comply
with the due process requirements set forth in that order. After reviewing the parties’ submissions
and the final bond determination, the Court denies the motion to enforce.
I. Background
Mr. Ramirez Sarate, a citizen of Venezuela, entered the United States in 2023 through a port
of entry on an “I-94 obtained via the CBP One application” and was “paroled into the interior.”
Doc. 1 at 2, 9. In July 2025, an immigration court “administratively closed” his case because “he is
married to a U.S. citizen with a pending I-130 application, entered...on an I-94, and was seeking to
adjust status once the I-130 petition was approved. Id. at 10. On January 8, 2026, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement arrested Mr. Ramirez Sarate, and he remains detained at the Otero County
Processing Center in New Mexico. Id.
In granting Mr. Ramirez Sarate’s habeas petition, this Court concluded that his detention
without a bond hearing violated the INA and Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See
Case 2:26-cv-00463-KG-SCY Document 15 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 4

2
generally Doc. 10. It ordered a bond hearing at which “the Government must justify Mr. Ramirez
Sarate’s detention by clear and convincing evidence.” Doc. 10 at 5.
An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) presided over the hearing and found that: “applying the District
Court’s novel legal standard, the Court finds that the Department of Homeland Security has
demonstrated that Respondent is a flight risk and has justified his continued detention by clear and
convincing evidence.” Doc. 11 at 2. Mr. Ramirez Sarate argues that “the IJ erred in its findings”
because “DHS did not present evidence justifying detention.” Id. at 3.
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
The Court concludes that (A) it has jurisdiction to consider Mr. Ramirez Sarate’s claim, and
(B) the bond proceeding complied with this Court’s prior order.
A. The Court has jurisdiction to consider Mr. Ramirez Sarate’s motion.
Before reaching the merits, the Court must address the Government’s argument that it lacks
jurisdiction to consider Mr. Ramirez Sarate’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.
Case 2:26-cv-00463-KG-SCY Document 15 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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”).
Under these principles, the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the IJ complied with
the due process requirements here. Mr. Ramirez Sarate 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.
Nonetheless, Mr. Ramirez Sarate’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. Ramirez Sarate’s habeas petition, however, this Court
held that due process required shifting that burden to the Government. Doc. 10 at 5. Nothing in the
recording demonstrates that the IJ failed to apply that burden-shifting framework. On the contrary,
the IJ explicitly referenced this Court’s directive in the final bond determination. Doc. 11 at 2. This
Case 2:26-cv-00463-KG-SCY Document 15 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to reweighing the IJ’s bond determination once those
procedures are followed. Rather, a review of the bond determination is for the Board of
Immigration Appeals.
IV. Conclusion
Mr. Ramirez Sarate’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-00463-KG-SCY Document 15 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 4