Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MARCOS EUSEBIO CADEZA ARAGON,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00065-KG-JHR
TODD LYONS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Marcos Aragon’s Motion to Enforce
Judgment, Doc. 19, the Government’s Response in Opposition, Doc. 21, and Petitioner’s Reply,
Doc. 22. For the reasons below, the Court denies the motion.
I. Background
Petitioner, a 47-year-old Mexican citizen, entered the United States more than two
decades ago. Doc. 1 at 20. Petitioner has a wife and three children in the United States. Id. He
has worked for the past 15 years as a kitchen manager at a beach restaurant in Delaware. Id. at 1.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested Petitioner on November
12, 2025, while he was “leaving a construction worksite in Ocean City, Maryland.” Id. at 2. He
has been detained since then, first in Maryland, then in Texas, and now in New Mexico at the
Otero County Processing Center. Id. at 3.
The Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order, Doc. 17, granting Petitioner’s
habeas petition and finding that his detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. Doc.
17 at 5. The order mandated the Government to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing within
Case 2:26-cv-00065-KG-JHR Document 24 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
seven days. 1 Id. At that bond hearing, the Government was required to bear the burden to
justify Petitioner’s continued detention. Id. The Court also required that the Government to
provide Petitioner “with sufficient notice of the hearing, including to his counsel, and adequate
access to an interpreter.” Id. An immigration judge (“IJ”) held a bond hearing within seven days
of the Court’s order and denied bond. See Doc. 18-1. The IJ determined that after considering
“the totality of the circumstances...DHS has established by clear and convincing evidence that
respondent is a flight risk that no amount of bond can cure.” Id.
Petitioner now alleges that the “proceeding...that [the Government] characterize[s] as a
bond review” “did not comply with the Court’s Order.” Doc. 19 at 2. He argues that the
“Government failed to carry the burden by clear and convincing evidence” and that “the
Government failed to provide sufficient notice of the sudden bond hearing.” Id. Petitioner
clarifies that he “does not seek review of the merits” of the bond hearing and “does not seek to
have this Court determine if the IJ’s ultimate decision on bond was erroneous” because that “role
belongs to the BIA.” Id. Rather, the parties’ briefing disputes whether Petitioner and his counsel
received “sufficient notice” of the bond hearing that was contemplated in the Court’s prior order.
Doc. 17 at 5.
Petitioner’s bond hearing was originally set for February 24 at 10:30 a.m. Doc. 19 at 3.
During that hearing, the IJ stated on the record to Petitioner and counsel that he “was not
prepared to proceed” because the matter had originally “been assigned to another Immigration
Judge.” Id. He rescheduled Petitioner’s bond hearing to 1 p.m. the same day. Id. Petitioner
argues that the 1 p.m. hearing, which he says was “suddenly conducted abruptly,” did not
1 The Memorandum Opinion and Order denied Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order, Doc. 2, as moot.
Case 2:26-cv-00065-KG-JHR Document 24 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
comply with the Court’s prior order because the Court’s order “did not permit a same-day, oral
reschedule without written notice to bond counsel.” Doc. 19 at 4. The Government responds
that Petitioner fails to “allege that he, or his counsel, were impacted in any way by the hearing
being held over into the afternoon.” Doc. 21 at 2. In addition, the Government argues that
neither “Petitioner...or his counsel, were impacted in any way by the hearing being held over into
the afternoon.” Id.
II. Analysis
The Court concludes that the bond proceeding conducted by the IJ complied with its prior
order, Doc. 17. Petitioner and his counsel were both present at the original, 10:30 a.m., bond
hearing on February 24, 2026. See Doc. 19 at 3. Petitioner and his counsel were also present at
the rescheduled, 1:00 p.m., bond hearing. Id. at 4. While the Court’s prior order required
“sufficient notice” of the bond hearing, the Court did not articulate any requirement that the
notice to Petitioner or his counsel be in writing, nor did the Court require a specific amount of
time to be provided for notice. See Doc. 17 at 5.
Petitioner’s counterarguments are unpersuasive. Petitioner argues that because “bond
counsel did not receive written notice...no lawful hearing occurred.” Doc. 22 at 4. Not so. The
fact that Petitioner and his counsel were both present at the rescheduled bond hearing
demonstrates that the IJ provided sufficient notice to the parties. Challenges to the ultimate
conclusion of whether or not to grant bond to a noncitizen belong with the Board of Immigration
Appeals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); see also Doc. 22-1 (Receipt of Petitioner’s appeal to the Board
of Immigration Appeals).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons above, Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Judgment, Doc. 19, is denied.
Case 2:26-cv-00065-KG-JHR Document 24 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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-00065-KG-JHR Document 24 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 4