Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
YESENIA YOSELIN RODRIGUEZ CERERO,
Petitioner,
v. No. 26-cv-0859-MIS-SCY
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the
United States; MARKWAYNE MULLIN,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, El
Paso Field Office Director, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; TODD LYONS, Acting
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and WARDEN, Otero County
Processing Center,
Respondents.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Petitioner Yesenia Yoselin Rodriguez
Cerero’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), ECF No. 1, filed
March 23, 2026. The federal Respondents filed an Amended Response on April 6, 2026. ECF
No. 7. Upon review of the Parties’ submissions, the record, and the relevant law, the Court will
DENY the Petition without prejudice.
I. Background
Petitioner is an immigration detainee at the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral,
New Mexico. See Pet. at 1. She is a native of Venezuela who entered the United States without
admission or parole on December 1, 2023, was detained upon entry, and was placed into removal
proceedings before the U.S. Immigration Court. See Form I-213 Record of
Case 2:26-cv-00859-MIS-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, ECF No. 7-1. On February 28, 2024, Petitioner was paroled into
the United States. See ICE Form I-830E, ECF No. 7-2.
On January 7, 2026, officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
Enforcement and Removal Operations arrested Petitioner during a scheduled ICE appointment.
Pet. at 1. On February 26, 2026, an Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s asylum claim, denied
withholding of removal under the INA, denied withholding of removal under the Convention
Against Torture, and ordered that Petitioner be removed to Venezuela. Order of the Immigration
Judge (“Removal Order”) at 1, 3, ECF No. 7-3. Petitioner did not file an appeal with the Board
of Immigration Appeals. See https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation (last visited Apr. 6,
2026) (reflecting that the Removal Order was issued February 26, 2026 and no appeal was filed).
On March 23, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, asking this Court to review her asylum claim. ECF No. 1 at 7.
II. Discussion
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, 687 (2001). Where, as here, the petitioner is subject to a final order of
removal, detention is governed by Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682, and 8 U.S.C. § 1231. The
Government is expected to secure a noncitizen’s removal within 90 days after issuing the removal
order. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). “[D]uring the 90-day removal
period, … [the noncitizen] must be held in custody.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 683 (citing 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(2)). After that, the Government may continue detaining the noncitizen only for as long
as is “reasonably necessary” to secure their removal. Id. at 683, 689; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
The Supreme Court determined that a six-month detention period is presumptively reasonable.
Case 2:26-cv-00859-MIS-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. “After this 6-month period, once the [petitioner] 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 th[e] showing” that the custody is
unconstitutional. Id.
Here, a final Removal Order was issued on February 26, 2026, ECF No. 7-3, and Petitioner
is subject to detention during the 90-day removal period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A) (“During
the removal period, the Attorney General shall detain the” noncitizen). Even when the 90-day
statutory removal period expires, Petitioner’s detention is presumptively reasonable through
August 26, 2026. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Therefore, even if the Court could construe
the Petition as asserting a claim for prolonged detention or seeking release, the Court could not
grant the relief. 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 aliens subject to … orders
of removal, meaning those aliens are not entitled to a bond hearing”).
Furthermore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s decision on
Petitioner’s asylum claim. 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.
Case 2:26-cv-00859-MIS-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Because the Court cannot grant Petitioner relief at this time, the Court will deny the Petition
without prejudice. Petitioner may file a new habeas petition under Zadvydas if her detention
extends beyond the presumptively reasonable six-month period (i.e., after August 26, 2026) or if
her detention otherwise becomes unlawful.
III. Conclusion
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Yesenia Yoselin Rodriguez Cerero’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 1, is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
………………………………………….
MARGARET STRICKLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00859-MIS-SCY Document 8 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 4