Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOSE ANGEL GALVEZ JOVEL,
Petitioner,
v. No. 1:25-cv-01233-KG-DLM
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Jose Angel Galvez Jovel’s Motion to
Enforce, Doc. 17, and the Government’s Response in Opposition, Doc. 19. Mr. Galvez Jovel
contends that, although the Government provided him with a bond hearing, it did not comply
with this Court’s previous order, Doc. 14. After reviewing the parties’ submissions and a
transcript of the bond proceeding, the Court concludes that the hearing satisfied the procedures
mandated by its earlier ruling and denies Mr. Galvez Jovel’s motion.
I. Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States in May 2016 without
inspection or admission. Doc. 13 at 2. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested
Petitioner on October 26, 2025, in the Portland area. Id. at 10. He is detained at the Cibola
County Correctional Center in New Mexico. Id. at 11.
This Court concluded that Mr. Galvez Jovel’s detention violated the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) because the Government had detained him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)
when he should have been detained under § 1226(a). The Court further concluded that the
proper constitutional remedy for this violation was a bond hearing at which the Government
Case 1:25-cv-01233-KG-DLM Document 20 Filed 05/21/26 Page 1 of 4

2
would bear the burden of justifying Mr. Galvez Jovel’s continued detention by clear and
convincing evidence. Id. at 4–5.
On January 26, 2026, an immigration judge (“IJ”) presided over Mr. Galvez Jovel’s bond
hearing. At the hearing, the IJ stated that “this...writ from New Mexico Court, District
Court...puts the clear and convincing [burden] onto DHS to show danger to the community and
flight risk.” Doc. 17-3 at 2. The IJ concluded that Mr. Galvez Jovel’s “asylum application does
not appear to be very promising” and denied bond “based on speculative relief and also [his]
manner of entry.” Id. at 5.
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, 533 U.S. at 687.
III. Analysis
For the reasons below, the Court concludes that (A) it has jurisdiction to consider Mr.
Galvez Jovel’s claim, and (B) the bond proceeding complied with this Court’s prior order.
A. The Court has jurisdiction to consider Mr. Galvez Jovel’s motion.
Before reaching the merits, the Court must address the Government’s argument that it
lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr. Galvez Jovel’s claim. See Tuck v. United Services Auto. Ass’n,
859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988) (a federal court has an independent obligation to assure itself
of subject matter jurisdiction). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), “[t]he Attorney General’s
discretionary judgment regarding the application of” 8 U.S.C. § 1226 is “not...subject to review,”
and “[n]o court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section
Case 1:25-cv-01233-KG-DLM Document 20 Filed 05/21/26 Page 2 of 4

3
regarding the detention or release of any alien.” But § 1226(e) does not eliminate “habeas
jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions of law.” Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d
976, 987 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Miranda v. Garland, 34 F.4th 338, 351 (4th Cir. 2022) (same).
Accordingly, §1226(e) does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction to consider “constitutional
challenge[s]” to the “procedures adopted by the Attorney General for all detention decisions
under § 1226(a).” Miranda, 34 F.4th at 352; see also Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200–02
(9th Cir. 2011) (collecting cases and holding that § 1226(e) does not limit federal court’s
jurisdiction to review bond hearing determinations for constitutional claims or legal error). This
framework also reflects a district court’s authority to ensure compliance with its own habeas
orders. See Hechavarria v. Whitaker, 358 F. Supp. 3d 227, 235–36 (W.D.N.Y. 2019) (stating
that, when addressing a motion to enforce a prior order granting conditional habeas relief, “the
Court is not reviewing a discretionary judgment of the IJ under § 1226,” but “determining
whether the order it issued...was followed”).
Under these principles, the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the IJ complied
with the due process requirements here. Mr. Galvez Jovel does not challenge the immigration
judge’s discretionary weighing of the evidence or the ultimate bond determination. Rather, he
raises a constitutional claim that the immigration judge failed to follow the due process
requirements set forth by this Court when denying bond.
B. The bond hearing comported with due process.
Mr. Galvez Jovel’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 Mr. Galvez Jovel’s habeas petition, however, this Court held that due
Case 1:25-cv-01233-KG-DLM Document 20 Filed 05/21/26 Page 3 of 4

4
process required shifting that burden to the Government. The record demonstrates that the IJ
applied the burden-shifting framework required by this Court’s prior order. Most notably, the IJ
stated that “there was some burden shifting” in this Court’s prior order “that puts the clear and
convincing [burden] onto DHS to show danger to the community and flight risk.” Doc. 17-3 at
1. The IJ placed the burden on the Government to justify continued detention by clear and
convincing evidence, as this Court required. This Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to
reweighing the IJ’s bond determination once those procedures were followed. Rather, a review
of the bond determination is for the Board of Immigration Appeals.
IV. Conclusion
Mr. Galvez Jovel’s Motion to Enforce this Court’s prior habeas order 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 1:25-cv-01233-KG-DLM Document 20 Filed 05/21/26 Page 4 of 4