Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Oscar Santos Cardona
v. Civil No. 25-cv-439-LM-AJ
Opinion No. 2026 DNH 003 P
Strafford County Department
of Corrections, Superintendent et al
O R D E R
Oscar Santos Cardona petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, alleging that his present detention violates the Immigration and Nationality
Act (INA) and his rights to substantive and procedural due process under the Fifth
Amendment because his removal is “not reasonably foreseeable.” The government
objects. Doc. no. 8. For the following reasons, Cardona’s petition (doc. no. 5-1) is
denied without prejudice.1
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a person held “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). The petition “may be resolved on the merits without [an evidentiary]
hearing when, as here, the material facts are not in dispute.” Cummings v. Fed.
Corr. Inst., Berlin, Civ. No. 22-cv-468-SM-AJ, 2024 WL 1256068, at *1 (D.N.H. Mar.
1 In granting Cardona’s motion to amend his petition, the court ordered him to
refile the amended petition attached to his motion as the petition in this case.
Although Cardona has not yet done so, the court treats that amended petition (doc.
no. 5-1) as the operative petition in this case.
Case 1:25-cv-00439-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 6

2
25, 2024). The petitioner has the burden of proving that his confinement is
unlawful. Espinoza v. Sabol, 558 F.3d 83, 89 (1st Cir. 2009).
BACKGROUND2
Cardona is a thirty-nine-year-old Honduran national. He is married to a
United States citizen and has two children who are also United States citizens.
However, Cardona himself is undocumented. Cardona first entered the United
States on or about May 15, 2004. In November of that year, an immigration judge
(“IJ”) ordered him removed to Honduras in absentia. On March 3, 2005, the
government removed Cardona.
On or about March 3, 2006, Cardona re-entered the country but was quickly
apprehended by border patrol agents. The agents reinstated the initial removal
order and removed Cardona a few days later. At some point thereafter, Cardona
entered the country a third time.3 On May 16, 2017, the government again
reinstated Cardona’s original removal order. Rather than detain Cardona until the
government could effectuate his removal, the government released Cardona on an
Order of Supervision, allowing him to remain out of custody subject to certain
conditions.
2 The following facts are not in dispute, expect where otherwise noted.
3 Cardona claims that he has entered the country twice, however, the
government has provided documentary evidence establishing that Cardona has
entered the country at least three times and has been twice removed. Cardona does
not challenge the authenticity of this documentary evidence.
Case 1:25-cv-00439-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 6

3
On or about April 24, 2025, Cardona, through his attorneys, requested that
the government conduct a reasonable fear interview.4 On October 6, 2025,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained Cardona and served him
with a Notice of Revocation of Release which explained that ICE had determined
that there is a “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future” and that it was appropriate to enforce the existing removal order.5 Doc. no.
8-9 at 1.
On October 6, the day of Cardona’s most recent arrest, he explained to an
ICE officer that if he is sent back to Honduras, he “will die.” Doc. no. 8-9 at 3.
Accordingly, in early November, an asylum officer conducted a reasonable fear
interview but found that Cardona did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or
torture. On November 18, 2025, an IJ affirmed the asylum officer’s finding.
The following day, Cardona filed a petition for review and a motion to stay
his removal pending appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 3,
4 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) provides that a noncitizen may not removed to a
country where their “life or freedom would be threatened” on account of their “race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Under the implementing regulations, a noncitizen who, “in the course of the
administrative removal or reinstatement process, expresses a fear of returning to the
country of removal,” is entitled to an interview with an asylum officer to determine
whether the noncitizen “has established a reasonable fear of persecution or torture.”
8 C.F.R. § 208.31(a)-(c). If the asylum officer determines that no reasonable fear
exists, the noncitizen may request that an IJ review the asylum officer’s
determination. Id. at 208.31(g).
5 The record does not reveal what efforts, if any, the government took to remove
Cardona between reinstatement of his removal order in May 2017 and his arrest in
October 2025.
Case 1:25-cv-00439-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 6

4
2025, the government filed a motion for summary disposition. Five days later, the
Circuit denied both the government’s motion for summary disposition and
Cardona’s request for a stay of removal. On December 12, 2025, the Circuit set a
briefing schedule.6
In his petition, Cardona appears to be claiming that his continued detention
violates the INA and the Constitution because he is not likely to be removed.7 Doc.
no. 5-1 at 1 (arguing his “removal from the United States is not reasonably
foreseeable because [he] has stated a fear of return to his home country and has
requested a Reasonable Fear Interview with ICE.”). Cardona also contends that his
family has endured “undue emotional and financial distress” from his continued
confinement. Id. at 5.
DISCUSSION
The government argues that Cardona’s petition should be denied because he
has failed to allege facts or reference any specific law to support his claims that his
continued detention violates either the Fifth Amendment or the INA.
Although Cardona’s claim is somewhat unclear, he appears to contend that
his removal is not reasonably foreseeable such that his indefinite detention pending
removal violates his rights under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). In
Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) limits a noncitizen’s
6 Cardona’s opening brief is due on January 21, 2026.
7 Cardona filed his initial petition on November 4, 2025, and moved to amend
his petition on November 21.
Case 1:25-cv-00439-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 6

5
detention pending removal “to a period reasonably necessary to bring about [his or
her] removal from the United States.” Id. at 689. The Court in Zadvydas recognized
a “presumptively reasonable period of detention” of six months but held that, once a
noncitizen who has been detained for six months “provides good reason to believe
that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that
showing.” Id. at 701. If the government cannot rebut it, it must release the
noncitizen from custody. Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 529 (2021).
Cardona’s petition does not establish entitlement to relief. As described
above, the government provided Cardona with a reasonable fear interview
approximately a month after detaining him and an IJ reviewed and affirmed the
asylum officer’s negative finding shortly thereafter. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.31
(describing process for asylum officer’s reasonable fear interview and IJ review).
While Cardona has appealed the IJ’s determination to the First Circuit, that court
has declined to stay his removal pending adjudication of the merits of his claims.
Other than stating that he has requested a reasonable fear interview (which he
acknowledges he received), Cardona makes no argument that the government will
be unable to remove him to Honduras. To the contrary, the government successfully
removed Cardona to Honduras on two prior occasions. Nor has Cardona presented
any legal argument as to how his present detention of approximately three months
otherwise violates his statutory or constitutional rights. He simply asserts, in a
conclusory fashion, that this detention violates the Constitution and the INA.
Case 1:25-cv-00439-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 01/08/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Cardona also appears to seek relief based on the negative consequences to his
family. Cardona explains that his continued detention has left his wife unable to
receive social security disability payments because he is the “payee” for such
payments. Without these payments, Cardona states that his wife does not have
access to the money she needs to support the couple’s children. While the court
sympathizes with Cardona’s family’s situation, these circumstances do not bear on
the lawfulness of his present detention.8
CONCLUSION
Cardona’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (doc. no. 5-1) is
denied without prejudice. The clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States District Judge
January 8, 2026
cc: Counsel of Record
8 Cardona also asserts that he is a beneficiary of an approved Form I-130. This
form, or “petition,” allows a United States citizen to apply for a noncitizen relative to
remain in the county. Pena v. Hyde, No. CV 25-11983-NMG, 2025 WL 2108913, at *1
(D. Mass. July 28, 2025). Approval of this petition “does not give [the beneficiary] any
immigration status or benefit.” Mamedov v. Barr, No. 20-CV-1063 (ARR), 2021 WL
781743, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2021) (alternation in original) (quoting USCIS I-130
Webpage). Other than noting that he is a beneficiary, Cardona makes no argument
as to how approval of this form makes his present detention unlawful.
Case 1:25-cv-00439-LM-AJ Document 9 Filed 01/08/26 Page 6 of 6