Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BENITO ALVAREZ LEDO,
Petitioner,
v. No. 26-cv-1005-MIS-KRS
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.,
Respondents,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Benito Alvarez Ledo’s pro se Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner seeks
release from immigration detention or a review of the legality of his custody. Because it appears
he is currently subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, the Court will require him
to show cause, if any, why the Petition should not be dismissed without prejudice to refiling at a
later time.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is detained at the Otero County Processing Center (“OCPC”) in Chaparral, New
Mexico. He has been in immigration custody since January 5, 2026. See ECF No. 1 at 6. The
immigration court entered a removal order on February 10, 2026. See
https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation (Executive Office for Immigration Review
automated case information website, last visited April 6, 2026). There is no record that Petitioner
filed an appeal, and it appears the immigration order is now final. Id.; see also Riley v. Bondi,
606 U.S. 259, 267 (2025) (a removal order is final if the noncitizen does not appeal within 30
days).
Case 2:26-cv-01005-MIS-KRS Document 4 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner’s aunt, Maritza De Armas, filed the instant case on April 2, 2026 on Petitioner’s
behalf as his “Next Friend.” He states that immigration officials are unable to effectuate his
removal to his country (Cuba). See ECF No. 1 at 3. Petitioner asks the Court to order his release
due to prolonged detention. Id. at 9.
DISCUSSION
Habeas corpus relief 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
v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). Courts conduct an initial review of pro se habeas petitions to
determine whether the claims raise a colorable request for relief. See Habeas Corpus Rules 1, 4.
“If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the moving party is not
entitled to relief in the district court, the Judge must dismiss the petition.” Habeas Corpus Rule
4(b). “If the petition is not dismissed, the Judge must order … an answer.” Id.
Where, as here, the petitioner is subject to a final order of removal, detention is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. The Government is expected to secure a noncitizen’s removal within 90 days
after issuing the removal order. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682; 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). “During
the 90-day removal period, … [the noncitizen] must be held in custody.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at
683 (citing § 1231). After that, the Government may continue detaining the noncitizen only for
as long as is “reasonably necessary” to secure their removal. Id.; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
Because a statute permitting a noncitizen’s “indefinite detention” would violate due
process, “once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer
authorized.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690, 699. The Supreme Court determined that a six-month
detention period is presumptively reasonable. Id. at 701. “After this 6-month period, … the
Case 2:26-cv-01005-MIS-KRS Document 4 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut [th]e showing” that the custody is
unconstitutional. Id. at 701.
Petitioner’s removal order was entered less than 90 days ago, on February 10, 2026. No
appeal was filed, and it appears that order is final. Petitioner is therefore subject to mandatory
detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). Even when the 90-day statutory removal period
expires, Petitioner’s detention is presumptively reasonable through August 10, 2026. See
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Absent further evidence, Petitioner cannot prevail on his claim for
prolonged detention or obtain a release. Petitioner is also not entitled to a bond hearing. See
Gregorio v. Warden, Case No. 2:26-cv-00657-JLT-SKO, 2026 WL 810004, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar.
24, 2026) (“Petitioner is … not entitled to a bond hearing because during the 90-day removal
period set forth in § 1231(a)(1)(A), his detention is mandatory”); Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594
U.S. 523, 526 (2021) (“We conclude that § 1231, not § 1226, governs the detention of [noncitizens]
subject to … orders of removal, meaning those [noncitizens] are not entitled to a bond hearing”).
To the extent Petitioner intends to challenge the removal order itself, relief is also
unavailable. Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1252, known as the “zipper clause,” to limit District
Courts’ jurisdiction over claims challenging removal orders. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S.
281, 316-17 (2018). Under the zipper clause, District Courts generally 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.
The Court will require Petitioner to file a response showing cause, if any, why the Petition
should not be summarily dismissed without prejudice. The show-cause response is due within
twenty (21) days of entry of this Order. If Petitioner declines to timely comply with this Order,
Case 2:26-cv-01005-MIS-KRS Document 4 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice. Petitioner will be permitted to refile the claims,
if his detention exceeds the six-month period under Zadvydas.
IT IS ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this Order, Petitioner shall
file a show-cause response, as set forth above.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-01005-MIS-KRS Document 4 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 4