Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
VANIA DE ARMAS RAMOS,
Petitioner,
v. No. 26-cv-00455-KG-KRS
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Vania De Armas Ramos’ Motion to
Enforce Judgment, Doc. 10, and the Government’s Response in Opposition, Doc. 16. Petitioner
contends that the bond hearing held after the Court’s prior order, Doc. 9, 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 citizen of Cuba, entered the United States in 2023 on parole. Doc. 1 at 4. In
2024, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) “granted a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s removal proceedings
without prejudice,” recognizing that she “had been paroled by DHS, is a Cuban national, and would
become prima facie eligible for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act.” Id. at 4–5.
After residing in the United States for more than one year as a paroled Cuban national, Petitioner
applied for lawful permanent residence under the Cuban Adjustment Act (“CAA”). Id. at 5.
On August 5, 2025, “following a minor traffic accident involving property damage,”
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents took Petitioner into custody. Id. She
remains detained at the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico. Id. On
January 16, 2025, an IJ pretermitted her application for asylum and related protection and ordered
Case 2:26-cv-00455-KG-KRS Document 16 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 4

2
her removed to Ecuador. Id. at 6. Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Appeal to the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Id.
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. 9 at 2, 4. 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 her. Id. at 5.
An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) presided over the hearing on March 10, 2026. See Doc. 15-1.
During the hearing, the IJ explicitly held that this Court “is shifting the burden to DHS to prove
danger to community and flight risk.” Id. at 4. The IJ found “by clear and convincing evidence
that” Petitioner is a flight risk. Id. at 6. Petitioner moves to enforce the Court’s prior order, arguing
that the IJ failed to shift the burden to the Government. See generally Doc. 15.
II. Analysis
The Court concludes that (A) it has jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claim, and (B) the
bond proceeding complied with this Court’s prior order.
A. The Court has jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s motion.
Before reaching the merits, the Court must address the Government’s argument that it lacks
jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’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 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
Case 2:26-cv-00455-KG-KRS Document 16 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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. Petitioner does not challenge the IJ’s discretionary weighing of
the evidence or the ultimate bond determination. Rather, she raises a constitutional claim that the IJ
failed to follow the due process requirements set forth by this Court when denying bond.
B. The bond hearing comported with due process.
Nonetheless, 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. 9 at 4–5. 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 and acknowledged that DHS bore the burden of justifying detention. See Doc.
15-1 at 4. This Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to reweighing the IJ’s bond determination once
those procedures are followed. A review of the bond determination is for the BIA.
Case 2:26-cv-00455-KG-KRS Document 16 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 4

4
III. Conclusion
Petitioner’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 2:26-cv-00455-KG-KRS Document 16 Filed 03/26/26 Page 4 of 4