Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
EDWINE WELLINGTON SISA SISA,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 1:26-cv-00163-JB-LF
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General;
DAREN K. MARGOLIN, Director for Executive
Office for Immigration Review;
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW;
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; TODD M. LYONS,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; MARY DE
ANDA-YBARRA, DIRECTOR, El Paso
Field Office Field Office, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and GEORGE DEDOS,
Warden of Torrence County Detention Facility,
Respondents.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on petitioner Edwine Wellington Sisa Sisa’s Verified
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14).
United States District Judge James Browning referred this case to me under 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3), and Virginia Beach Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Wood, 901 F.2d 849
(10th Cir. 1990) “to conduct hearings, if warranted, including evidentiary hearings, and to
perform any legal analysis required to recommend to the Court an ultimate disposition of the
case.” Doc. 3 at 1. For the following reasons, I recommend that the Court deny both the petition
and motion to dismiss as moot and dismiss this matter accordingly.
Case 1:26-cv-00163-JB-LF Document 26 Filed 05/21/26 Page 1 of 4

2
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador. Doc. 1 ¶ 12. On or about May 7, 2024, a Border Patrol
agent encountered Petitioner and his family, determined that they had entered the country
unlawfully, and arrested them. Doc. 10-4 at 3. After determining that Petitioner and his family
“do not appear to be a threat to national security, border security, or public safety,” Petitioner and
his family were released from custody pending proceedings in immigration court. Id. After his
release, Petitioner resided in Minnesota before he was again detained by immigration officials
sometime later.1 Doc. 1 ¶ 12. Petitioner was detained at the Torrance County Detention Facility
in Estancia, New Mexico. Id. ¶¶ 22, 32.
On January 26, 2026, Petitioner filed a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his mandatory detention without the opportunity for a
bond hearing. See Doc. 1. Petitioner requested that he be immediately released from custody or,
alternatively, provided a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Id. at 28. On February
12, 2026, Respondents2 answered the petition, arguing that Petitioner was properly subject to
mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and not entitled to a bond hearing
pursuant to § 1226(a). See Doc. 7. However, on February 27, Respondents filed a status report
indicating that Petitioner had been scheduled for a bond hearing on March 5, 2026. Doc. 10 at 1.
At the bond hearing, the immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioner bond after concluding that he
1 The petition does not specify when this second period of detention began, see Doc. 1, but a
subsequent filing does state that Petitioner was apprehended “nearly 2 years after entry,” Doc. 8
at 3. Respondents state that “Petitioner was detained after an encounter ICE (sic) on November
6, 2026, not pursuant to a warrant.” Doc. 10 at 1. This future date appears to be a typographical
error. Thus, it is not clear from the filings on what date Petitioner was taken into custody.
2 Counsel for Federal Respondents does not represent respondent Warden George Dedos, though
she states that “all arguments made on behalf of the [Federal Respondents] apply equally to the
Warden.” Doc. 6 at 1 n.1.
Case 1:26-cv-00163-JB-LF Document 26 Filed 05/21/26 Page 2 of 4

3
“has not met [his] burden of showing that he is not a flight risk” and also “as a matter of
discretion.” Doc. 12-1 at 1.
On March 16, 2026, Respondents filed their motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that
this matter should be dismissed as moot because Petitioner had received the relief he had sought
in the alternative. Doc. 14 at 1–2. Petitioner argued that the Court retained jurisdiction over this
matter because the March 5 bond hearing was not consistent with due process and because
Petitioner’s warrantless arrest justified his immediate release from custody. Doc. 15 at 4–8.
However, Petitioner again appeared before an IJ on March 23, 2026, where Petitioner withdrew
his pending applications for relief without prejudice and was granted voluntary departure. Doc.
19-1 at 1–2. Petitioner was ordered to depart from the United States by May 23, 2026, though he
was ordered to remain detained until his departure. Id. at 2. On April 9, 2026, Petitioner notified
the Court that “[h]e is no longer contesting his removability nor seeking release from custody”
and that “[t]his matter is now moot.” Doc. 22 at 1. On May 20, 2026, Respondents filed a status
report stating that, upon information and belief, Petitioner had departed the United States on
April 16, 2026. Doc. 25 at 1.
ANALYSIS
Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, grants district courts authority to grant writs
of habeas corpus, and district courts may entertain petitions pursuant to § 2241 in relation to
immigration cases. Ochieng v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 1110, 1115 (10th Cir. 2008). However, “[t]he
writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless [he] is in custody.” Riley v. Immigr. &
Naturalization Serv., 310 F.3d 1253, 1256 (10th Cir. 2002) (alterations in original) (quoting 8
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1)). A petitioner’s release from detention will not moot his petition if the
petitioner meets one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine:
Case 1:26-cv-00163-JB-LF Document 26 Filed 05/21/26 Page 3 of 4

4
(1) secondary or “collateral” injuries survive after resolution of the primary
injury; (2) the issue is deemed a wrong capable of repetition yet evading review;
(3) the defendant voluntarily ceases an allegedly illegal practice but is free to
resume it at any time; or (4) it is a properly certified class action suit.
Id. at 1257 (quoting Chong v. Dist. Dir., 264 F.3d 378, 384 (3d Cir. 2001)).
Petitioner initially contested his detention, but he subsequently was granted voluntary
departure. Doc. 19-1 at 2. While Petitioner was ordered to remain detained before he departed
the United States, id., he informed the Court that he no longer sought release from custody and
conceded that the case is moot, Doc. 22 at 1. Respondents informed the Court that Petitioner
departed the country on April 16, 2026. Doc. 25 at 1. I therefore recommend that the Court
deny both the petition and Respondents’ motion to dismiss as moot and dismiss this matter
accordingly.
CONCLUSION
I recommend that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 1) and Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) as moot. Petitioner no longer
contests his detention, concedes that this matter is moot, and his voluntary departure from the
country has since been effectuated.
THE PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of a copy of
these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written objections
with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Written objections
must be both timely and specific. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., With Buildings,
Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, Known as: 2121 E. 30th St., Tulsa, Oklahoma, 73
F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). A party must file any objections with the Clerk of the
District Court within the fourteen-day period if that party wants to have appellate review
of the proposed findings and recommended disposition. Failure to file timely and specific
objections will result in waiver of de novo review by a district or appellate court. Id. In
other words, if no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.
Laura Fashing
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00163-JB-LF Document 26 Filed 05/21/26 Page 4 of 4