Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CLAUDE NGEFACK,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-441-KG-JFR
TODD LYONS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Claude Ngefack’s Motion to Enforce,
Doc. 11, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 16. Petitioner argues that the bond hearing held
after the Court’s prior Order, Doc. 10, did not comply with the due process requirements set
forth in that Order. After reviewing the parties’ submissions and a digital audio recording
(“DAR”) of the proceeding, the Court denies the motion to enforce.1
I. Background
Petitioner is a 29-year-old Cameroonian citizen. Doc. 1 at 28. He remains detained at
the Otero County Processing Center in New Mexico. Id. at 1.
Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, 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. 10 at 2, 3. On March 27, 2026,
the Court ordered the Government to provide a bond hearing within seven days, at which it had
1 The DAR of the Bond Hearing (March 30, 2026) is on file with the Court and lodged at
Doc. 17 (the “Audio Recording”).
Case 2:26-cv-00441-KG-JFR Document 20 Filed 05/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
the burden to justify his continued detention by clear and convincing evidence, or release him.
Id. at 5.
An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) presided over the hearing on March 30, 2026. See Doc. 16
at 1. During the hearing, the IJ heard first from the Government. Audio Recording at 0:21. The
Government argued that Petitioner “clearly is a flight risk” because “he has a removal order” and
because Petitioner appealed that order, “he is being detained during the pendency of the appeal.”
Id. at 0:26. After hearing from Petitioner, the IJ denied bond because Petitioner is “clearly a
flight risk due to the fact that [Petitioner] has a pending removal order.” Id. at 1:21. The IJ
informed Petitioner of his right to appeal the bond order, and he waived. Id. at 1:28.
Petitioner moves to enforce the Court’s prior order, “challenging the procedure” because
“at least I was supposed to be given a chance to express myself as a needy and a refuge.” Doc.
11 at 1.
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 an 8 U.S.C. § 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. 10 at 5. Nothing in the record
demonstrates that the IJ failed to apply the burden-shifting framework. To the contrary, the IJ
heard from the Government first, and the Government made individualized arguments for
Petitioner’s continued detention. Audio Recording at 0:27. The fact that the IJ concluded that
Petitioner “clearly” is a flight risk after only hearing substantive argument from the Government
Case 2:26-cv-00441-KG-JFR Document 20 Filed 05/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
indicates appropriate burden shifting. Id. at 1:21. This Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to
reconsidering the IJ’s bond determination once the burden was properly shifted.
III. Conclusion
Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce this Court’s prior habeas Order, Doc. 11, 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-00441-KG-JFR Document 20 Filed 05/29/26 Page 3 of 3