Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
EMILIO LOPEZ MONDEJA,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-01075-KG-JHR
OTERO COUNTY PRISON FACILITY,
WARDEN, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Emilio Lopez Mondeja’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 10. Petitioner proceeds pro se. Doc. 1 at
1. For the reasons below, the Court denies the petition.
I. Background
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Cuba, entered the United States in 2022 near Eagle
Pass, Texas. Doc. 10 at 2. He was granted parole and applied for asylum. Doc. 1 at 13. He also
applied for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act (“CAA”). Id.
On February 25, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents arrested
Petitioner at a required probation appointment. Id. He is currently detained at Otero County
Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico. Id. at 28. At the outset of detention, an IJ denied
bond, finding that Petitioner is a “danger to the community.” Id. at 14; Doc. 10-6 at 1.
On January 6, 2026, an immigration judge (“IJ”) granted his asylum application and
denied his application for adjustment of status. Doc. 1 at 13. The Department of Homeland
Security (“DHS”) appealed the grant of asylum to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”),
and that appeal remains pending. Id.
Case 2:26-cv-01075-KG-JHR Document 11 Filed 05/22/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner claims that his confinement violates his Fifth Amendment Due Process Rights
and that his “continued detention has become punitive...given his deteriorating mental and
physical condition” in confinement. Id. at 12, 15. He seeks immediate release, an order
prohibiting transfer, and recognition of his pending I-485 adjustment under the CAA. Id. at 4.
The Government opposes the petition. See generally Doc. 10.
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 v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001).
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) establishes distinct detention regimes
depending on whether a noncitizen is “seeking admission” to the United States. See Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288–89 (2018). Section 1225(b)(2)(A) applies to “applicant[s] for
admission” who are “seeking admission” and “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be
admitted.” The “provision mandates detention and affords no bond hearing.” Pu Sacvin v. De
Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *1 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.). By contrast, § 1226(a)
authorizes the arrest and detention, “on a warrant issued by the Attorney General,” of noncitizens
“pending a decision on whether [they are] to be removed.” Noncitizens detained under this
second detention regime are “entitled to individualized bond hearings at the outset of detention.”
Velasquez Salazar, 806 F. Supp. 3d 1231, 1239 (D.N.M. 2025).
Case 2:26-cv-01075-KG-JHR Document 11 Filed 05/22/26 Page 2 of 4

3
III. Analysis
As an initial matter, § 1226 governs Petitioner’s detention. Petitioner has lived in the
United States for years and was not arrested at a port of entry or near the border. He therefore
was not seeking admission at the time of his arrest.
The Court nonetheless declines to grant relief because Petitioner received a bond hearing
under § 1226(a). The IJ considered the record and denied bond as a matter of discretion, finding
that Petitioner failed to carry his burden of showing he is not a danger to the community. Doc.
10-6 at 1. Under these circumstances, Petitioner has received the process contemplated by
§ 1226(a). This case is unlike those in which an IJ refuses to hold a bond hearing or declines to
reach the merits for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Pu Sacvin v. De Anda-Ybarra, 2025 WL
3187432, at *1 (D.N.M.); Melendez Aldarozo v. Noem, 2026 WL 735379, at *1 (D.N.M.).
Rather, here, the IJ held a hearing and decided the issue.
Moreover, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of Petitioner’s immigration
status or the underlying removal proceedings. See Hassan v. I.N.S., 66 F.3d 266, 268 (10th Cir.
1995). Therefore, the Court may not review the IJ’s denial of adjustment.
Petitioner also raises concerns about his deteriorating health in detention. See Doc. 1 at
14. The Court takes those concerns seriously. But such allegations challenge the conditions of
Petitioner’s confinement, rather than the legality of the detention itself, and therefore do not
provide a basis for habeas relief. As the Tenth Circuit has explained, detainees “who wish to
challenge only the conditions of their confinement...must do so through civil rights lawsuits...not
through federal habeas proceedings.” Standifer v. Ledezma, 653 F.3d 1276, 1278 (10th Cir.
2011). So, those allegations cannot support the relief sought in this action.
Case 2:26-cv-01075-KG-JHR Document 11 Filed 05/22/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Petition, Doc. 1, 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-01075-KG-JHR Document 11 Filed 05/22/26 Page 4 of 4