Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ELIDIO JOSE PENA ROJAS,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:26-cv-424-KG-GJF
MARY DE ANDA YBARRA, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Elidio Pena Rojas’ Motion to Enforce
Judgment, Doc. 9, the Government’s Status Report, Doc. 12, and Petitioner’s Reply, Doc. 13.
Petitioner argues that the bond hearing held after the Court’s prior Order, Doc. 8, did not comply
with the due process requirements set forth in that Order. After reviewing the parties’
submissions and a transcript of the bond hearing, the Court denies the motion to enforce.
I. Background
Petitioner, a 36-year-old Venezuelan citizen, entered the United States in 2024. Doc. 2 at
3. On December 12, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested him in
Amarillo, Texas. Id. at 3. Petitioner remains detained at the Torrance County Processing
Facility in New Mexico. Doc. 2 at 1. Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus,
Doc. 2, and the Court held that Petitioner’s detention absent a bond hearing violated the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Doc.
8 at 2, 5. The Court ordered the Government to provide a bond hearing within seven days, at
which it had the burden to justify his continued detention by clear and convincing evidence, or
release him. Id. at 5.
Case 1:26-cv-00424-KG-GJF Document 14 Filed 05/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) presided over the hearing on March 30, 2026. See Doc. 9-1.
During the hearing, the IJ explicitly stated that this Court is “flipping the burden of proof” so
“the burden of proof is on the government to justify [Petitioner’s] continued detention by clear
and convincing evidence.” Id. at 3. The Government argued that Petitioner was a “flight risk”
and “does not have strong ties to the community” since he has only been “here in the United
States since 2004.” Id. at 10. The IJ found that the Government “has justified their response to
continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 4. Petitioner moves to enforce the
Court’s prior order, arguing that the IJ “effectively [ignored] the legal standards set forth in this
Court’s writ.” Doc. 9 at 2.
II. Analysis
Petitioner’s bond hearing satisfied the due process requirements set forth in this Court’s
prior order. Under ordinary circumstances, “the burden” at a § 1226 bond hearing “is on the
noncitizen” to show that detention is unwarranted. Salazar v. Dedos, 2025 WL 2676729, at *3
(D.N.M.). In granting Petitioner’s habeas petition, however, this Court held that due process
required shifting that burden to the Government. Doc. 8 at 5. Nothing in the record
demonstrates that the IJ failed to apply the burden-shifting framework. To the contrary, the IJ
explicitly referred to this Court’s order, acknowledged that DHS bore the burden of justifying
detention, and the Government made individualized arguments for Petitioner’s continued
detention. See Doc. 9-1 at 3. This Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to reconsidering the IJ’s
bond determination once those procedures are followed. A review of the bond determination is
for the BIA.
Case 1:26-cv-00424-KG-GJF Document 14 Filed 05/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
III. Conclusion
Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce this Court’s prior habeas Order, Doc. 9, 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 1:26-cv-00424-KG-GJF Document 14 Filed 05/05/26 Page 3 of 3