Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ARIEL ALEJANDRO NUNEZ MORA,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00928-DHU-JHR
WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center, et al,
Respondents,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner Ariel Alejandro Nunez Mora’s pro
se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (“Petition”). Doc. 1. Petitioner
challenges his immigration detention and seeks a release from custody or a bond hearing. The
Court, Hon. Kenneth Gonzales, recently dismissed Petitioner’s claims because he is subject to
detention during the 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Having reviewed the record,
and since Petitioner is still within the 90-day period, the Court will dismiss the Petition without
prejudice to refiling at a later time.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is an immigration detainee at the Otero County Processing Center (“OCPC”) in
Chaparral, New Mexico. He was detained on September 16, 2025. See Doc. 1 at 4. On January 6,
2026, the immigration judge entered an order of removal. Id. Petitioner did not file an appeal with
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the removal order is now final. See Doc. 1 in Nunez
Mora v. OCPC, 26-cv-0460 KG-DLM (reflecting that the last day to appeal the removal order was
February 5, 2026); https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/caseInformation (reflecting a removal order was
entered on January 6, 2026, and no appeal was filed).
Case 2:26-cv-00928-DHU-JHR Document 3 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Petitioner filed a habeas petition on February 17, 2026, and sought a release from custody.
The Court, Hon. Kenneth Gonzales, dismissed the petition without prejudice because Petitioner is
subject to mandatory detention during the 90-day removal period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. See Doc.
3 in Nunez Mora v. OCPC, 26-cv-0460 KG-DLM.
Petitioner filed the instant case on March 27, 2026. He raises two grounds for relief.
Ground one states Petitioner is subject to prolonged and unconstitutional detention. See Doc. 1 at
6. Ground two references a pending asylum petition/request under the Cuban Adjustment Act and
alleges Petitioner is being held without bond. Id. He seeks immediate release from custody or,
alternatively, a bond hearing within 48 hours. Id. at 7.
DISCUSSION
Habeas corpus relief 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). Courts conduct an initial review of pro se habeas petitions to
determine whether the claims raise a colorable request for relief. See Habeas Corpus Rules 1, 4.
“If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the moving party is not
entitled to relief in the district court, the Judge must dismiss the petition.” Habeas Corpus Rule
4(b). “If the petition is not dismissed, the Judge must order … an answer.” Id.
Where, as here, 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 final removal order. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at
682; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). “During the 90-day removal period, … [the noncitizen] must
be held in custody.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 683 (citing § 1231). After that, the Government may
Case 2:26-cv-00928-DHU-JHR Document 3 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 4

3
continue detaining the noncitizen only for as long as is “reasonably necessary” to secure their
removal. Id.; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). The Supreme Court determined that a six-month detention
period is presumptively reasonable. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. “After this 6-month period, … the
Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut [th]e showing” that the custody is
unconstitutional. Id. at 701.
As explained in Nunez Mora v. OCPC, 26-cv-0460 KG-DLM, a final removal order was
entered on January 6, 2026, and Petitioner is subject to mandatory 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 July 6, 2026. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.
Petitioner therefore cannot obtain a release from custody or a bond hearing at this time. See
Gregorio, v. Warden, 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”).
Because the Court cannot grant the requested relief (release or a bond hearing) at this time,
the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner may refile his claims for prolonged
detention after expiration of the six-month period under Zadvydas (i.e., after July 6, 2026) or if the
basis for the claims change.
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Ariel Alejandro Nunez Mora’s pro se Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Case 2:26-cv-00928-DHU-JHR Document 3 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 4

4
to refiling; and the Court will enter a separate judgment closing the civil case.
____________________________________
HONORABLE DAVID HERRERA URIAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00928-DHU-JHR Document 3 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 4