Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MIGUEL RAMOS QUINONES,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00917-KG-GJF
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Miguel Ramos Quinones’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus. Doc. 1, and the Government’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Doc. 9.
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, challenges the facts supporting his continued detainment pending
removal proceedings. Doc. 1 at 2. For the reasons below, the Court dismisses the petition without
prejudice.
I. Background
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Cuba. Doc. 1 at 1. He arrived to the United States on
March 8, 2024, and received a Notice to Appear, charging him as an “arriving alien” without a valid
entry document. Id. at 6.
Following his parole into the United States, Petitioner lived in Eddy County, New Mexico,
with his wife and his infant daughter, who is a United States citizen. Id. at 1. In December 2025,
Petitioner was arrested after “an alcohol-related argument or disturbance involving a friend” and
charged with public affray. Id. at 2. On February 18, 2026, the Eddy County Magistrate Court
dismissed the criminal complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Id. at 14. Petitioner
was subsequently detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and transferred to the custody of the Department
of Homeland Security. Doc. 9 at 1. On March 16, 2026, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s
Case 2:26-cv-00917-KG-GJF Document 10 Filed 04/28/26 Page 1 of 3

2
request for a change is custody status, concluding that he “has not met his burden of showing that he
is not a danger to the community.” Doc. 1 at 11. Petitioner remains detained at the Otero County
Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico pending removal proceedings. Id. at 1.
Petitioner challenges the immigration judge’s bond determination. Id. at 2. The
Government asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s decision
denying bond to Petitioner. Doc. 9 at 2–3.
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 v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
In analyzing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court “accept[s] as true all well-pleaded
factual allegations in a complaint and view[s] these allegations in the light most favorable to the”
petitioner. Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). A habeas petition
withstands dismissal only if it alleges “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Aguilera v. Kirkpatrick, 241
F.3d 1286, 1290 (10th Cir. 2001) (noting that a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition may “be dismissed...under
Rule 12(b)(6)”).
III. Analysis
Petitioner is detained under § 1226. Doc. 9 at 1. Section 1226(a) “authorizes the
Government to detain certain [noncitizens] already in the country pending the outcome of removal
proceedings.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018). Noncitizens detained under
§ 1226(a) are entitled to bond hearings “at the outset of detention.” Id. at 306. Here, an
Case 2:26-cv-00917-KG-GJF Document 10 Filed 04/28/26 Page 2 of 3

3
immigration judge denied Petitioner bond, finding that Petitioner did not meet his burden of
demonstrating that he was not a danger to the community. Doc. 1 at 11.
The Court lacks the authority to consider Petitioner’s challenge to the immigration judge’s
bond determination. Doc. 1 at 2. In habeas proceedings, district courts lack jurisdiction to review
an immigration judge’s decision to deny bond. § 1226(e); see also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510,
516 (2003) (noting that § 1226(e) precludes review of the Attorney General’s “discretionary
judgment” or “decision” regarding detention or release but permits constitutional challenges to
detention). A petitioner seeking review of a bond decision must either appeal the denial to the
Board of Immigration Appeals or file a request for a bond redetermination. Johnson v. Guzman
Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 527 (2021); see also 8 CFR § 236.1(d)(1), (3). Because Petitioner has
received adequate process, his continued detention pending removal proceedings remains lawful.
IV. Conclusion
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is denied. The Court grants the
Government’s motion and dismisses the petition without prejudice. Petitioner may file a
subsequent petition should the facts of his detention change.
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-00917-KG-GJF Document 10 Filed 04/28/26 Page 3 of 3