Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
B VAN LE,
Petitioner,
v. 	No. 26-cv-0704-WJ-KK
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;
CURRENT SECRETARY, U.S. Department
Of Homeland Security; AND PAMELA BONDI,
U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents,1
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Untitled Pro Se Letters Seeking Advice or Relief
(Docs. 1, 3) (Letter-Filings). 	Petitioner is an immigration detainee at the Otero County Processing
Center. 	The Letter-Filings indicate he has lived in the United States for most of his life, and he
was taken into custody on June 13, 2025. 	The Letter-Filings appear to seek assistance or advice,
including advice on whether Petitioner can remain in the country by filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition. 	See Doc. 3 at 2.
This Court cannot determine whether a noncitizen is ultimately admissible in the United
1 The Clerk’s Office shall add/substitute the above-mentioned parties as Respondents in this case. 	See
Torres-Torres v. Miller, 2020 WL 4430519 (D.N.M. July 31, 2020) (discussing the party respondents in an
immigration habeas case); 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-00704-SMD-JMR Document 4 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
States, nor can it review a removal order. 	Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1252, known as the “zipper
clause,” to limit District Courts’ jurisdiction over claims challenging removal. 	See Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 316-17 (2018). 	Under the zipper clause, District Courts lack
jurisdiction over “all questions of law and fact” that arise from a removal order, and “[n]either
habeas corpus” nor “any other provision of law” can be used to avoid § 1252(b)(9)’s jurisdictional
bar. 	Id. at 317; see also Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 622 (9th Cir. 2012) (the “statutory
scheme was designed to limit all [noncitizens] to one bite of the apple with regard to challenging
an order of removal”).
Petitioner may challenge his immigration detention in this Court - as opposed to any ruling
on removal - under § 2241. 	Examples of common § 2241 challenges include the failure to provide
an adequate bond hearing and the failure effectuate a final removal order within six months.
Petitioner shall file a § 2241 petition on the official form within twenty-one (21) days of entry of
this Order, if he seeks such relief. 	By the same deadline, Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee
or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 	The § 2241 petition should include details about
what process (bond hearings, removal hearings, etc.) Petitioner has received so far; whether/when
the Immigration Court entered a removal order or denied bond; the reason for any denial of bond;
and the status of any immigration appeals. 	Petitioner may find it helpful to attach any orders or
documents from the Immigration Court, but documentary evidence is not required at this stage.
The failure to timely comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this case without prejudice
to refiling at a later time.
IT IS ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this Order, Petitioner shall:
(a) file a § 2241 petition on the proper form; and (b) pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to
Case 2:26-cv-00704-SMD-JMR Document 4 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
proceed in forma pauperis
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall UPDATE the case caption to
match the party Respondents added/substituted via this Order and MAIL Petitioner a blank 28
U.S.C. § 2241 form.
/s/____________________________________
HON. WILLIAM P. JOHNSON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00704-SMD-JMR Document 4 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 3