Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
YOEL ESPERANZA IGARZA,
Petitioner,
v. 	Civ. No. 26-536 JB/SCY
WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center,
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, Field Office Director of
Enforcement and Removal Operations, El Paso
Field Office, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; TODD LYONS, Acting Director
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department
Of Homeland Security; AND PAMELA BONDI,
U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
This matter comes before me on Petitioner Yoel Esperanza Igarza’s Motion to Enforce
the Court’s Habeas Order and Request for Further Relief (Doc. 12) and Motion for Order
Prohibiting Transfer (Doc. 13). United States District Judge James Browning referred this case to
me under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3), and Va. Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Wood,
901 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1990) “to conduct hearings, if warranted, including evidentiary hearings,
and to perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate disposition of
the case.” Doc. 4. Having reviewed the briefs and the law, I recommend that the Court deny both
motions.
BACKGROUND
On March 16, 2026, I entered a Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition
(“PFRD”), recommending that the Court grant Mr. Esperanza Igarza’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and order that he receive a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Doc. 8.
Case 2:26-cv-00536-JB-SCY Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 4

2
The Court adopted this recommendation, ordering a bond hearing be held by April 7, 2026. Doc.
9. The Federal Respondents filed a notice, advising the Court that an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
held a bond hearing on April 2, 2026 and that the IJ denied bond “due to a pending charge for
felony possession of drugs and the flight risk imposed by Petitioner.” Doc. 11.
Mr. Esperanza Igarza filed the present motions on April 10, 2026. Docs. 12, 13. The
Federal Respondents did not file a response to either motion.
ANALYSIS
In his motion to enforce, Mr. Esperanza Igarza argues that although he received a bond
hearing, he was not provided a meaningful opportunity for release and the IJ failed to comply
with this Court’s Order. Doc. 12 at 1-2. As explained by Judge Riggs,
The Court “retains jurisdiction to enforce its lawful judgments, including habeas
judgments.” Gall v. Scroggy, 603 F.3d 346, 352 (6th Cir. 2010); Burton v.
Johnson, 975 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir. 1992) (explaining that district court has
authority to enforce its habeas judgment). And the Court has jurisdiction over
constitutional challenges to the application of § 1226. See Demore v. Kim, 538
U.S. 510, 516–17 (2003) (holding that “Section 1226(e) contains no explicit
provision barring habeas review, and ... its clear text does not bar [a petitioner’s]
constitutional challenge”); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 295 (2018). But
the Court does not have jurisdiction to review an IJ’s “discretionary and factual
determinations.” Tobar v. Gonzales, 200 F. App’x 796, 799 (10th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117, 1130 (10th Cir. 2006)). Under
§ 1226(e), “No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General
under [§ 1226] regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant,
revocation, or denial of bond or parole.”
Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction over the narrow issues of whether the
hearing complied with the Order and whether the judge was biased in violation of
Petitioner’s due process right to a neutral decisionmaker. But the Court may not
review whether the IJ failed to appropriately consider the evidence and factors
relevant to determining that Petitioner is a flight risk, even if Petitioner recasts
them as constitutional issues. See Tobar, 200 F. App’x at 799.
Case 2:26-cv-00536-JB-SCY Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Lleshi v. Noem, No. 1:26-CV-00032-KWR-SCY, 2026 WL 837006, at *2 (D.N.M. Mar. 26,
2026).
Here, I find that the IJ held a bond hearing in compliance with the Court’s Order. Mr.
Esperanza Igarza argues that “[b]ond was denied based on a generalized rule rather then
individualized findings.” Doc. 12 at 2. However, the IJ made factual findings specific to Mr.
Esperanza Igarza in determining that bond should be denied. See Doc. 12 at 4 (Order of the
Immigration Judge). That Mr. Esperanza Igarza disagrees with the IJ’s factual findings is an
issue for the standard appeal process, not for this Court. Mr. Esperanza Igarza also argues that he
received no advanced notice of the hearing. However, the Court’s Order found that Mr.
Esperanza Igarza was entitled to an immediate bond hearing, ordering that it be completed within
five business days, thus limiting the advance notice he was able to receive. Mr. Esperanza Igarza
makes no further arguments to demonstrate that his right to due process was violated.
Lastly, Mr. Esperanza Igarza filed a separate motion in which he requests that the Court
prohibit his transfer outside the District of New Mexico while this habeas action is pending.
However, the Court has already entered a final judgment in this matter, Doc. 10, and I
recommend denying Mr. Esperanza Igarza’s request for further relief. As such, his habeas action
is no longer pending with this Court and so his request is moot.
RECOMMENDATION
For these reasons, I recommend that the Court DENY the Motion to Enforce the Court’s
Habeas Order and Request for Further Relief (Doc. 12) and the Motion to Prohibit Transfer
(Doc. 13).
____________________________________
Steven C. Yarbrough
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00536-JB-SCY Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 4

4
THE PARTIES ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of a
copy of these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written
objections with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party
must file any objections with the Clerk of the District Court within the fourteen-day period
if that party wants to have appellate review of the proposed findings and recommended
disposition. If no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.
Case 2:26-cv-00536-JB-SCY Document 14 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 4