Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MOLLY JOSEPHINA KEABETSWE,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00156-KG-KK
HECTOR RIOS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Molly Josephina Keabetswe’s Motion to Enforce
Judgment, Doc. 14, and the Government’s Objections, Doc. 19. Because Petitioner’s challenge
presents purely legal questions, the Court declines to hold a hearing, 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and
denies the motion for the reasons below.
I. Background
Ms. Keabetswe, a 50-year-old Botswanan citizen, entered the United States in 2017
through the advanced parole program. Doc. 1 at 6. For the past decade, she has remained
compliant with her conditions of release and has no criminal record. Id. She resided in New
York City. Doc. 10-1 at 1.
On July 11, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security arrested Ms. Keabetswe
following a regularly scheduled ICE check-in. Doc. 1 at 7. On December 22, 2025, an
immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner removed from the United States. See Doc. 10 at 2.
Petitioner appealed that order, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily
dismissed her appeal on March 24, 2026. See Doc. 19-1. The BIA clarified that the removal
Case 2:26-cv-00156-KG-KK Document 20 Filed 05/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
order became administratively final “upon the respondent’s waiver of the right to appeal” at her
December 22, 2025, removal hearing. Id. at 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, 533 U.S. at 687.
III. Analysis
After reviewing the record and applicable legal authority, the Court concludes that
Petitioner fails to meet the standards set out in Zadvydas and that her detention is now governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1).
“[T]he Government ordinarily secures” a noncitizen’s removal during the 90 days after
issuing a final order for the person to be removed. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682; see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(1). During that 90-day removal period, the noncitizen is typically detained. Zadvydas,
533 U.S. at 682. After that, the Government may 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).
Because a statute permitting a noncitizen’s “indefinite detention” would violate due
process, “once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer
authorized.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690, 699. A six-month detention period, the Supreme Court
held, is presumptively reasonable. Id. at 701. After that, if the noncitizen “provides good reason
to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,”
the Government “must…rebut that showing” or release the noncitizen. Id. at 701. “[F]or
detention to remain reasonable, as the period of prior postremoval confinement grows, what
Case 2:26-cv-00156-KG-KK Document 20 Filed 05/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
counts as the reasonably foreseeable future…shrink[s].” Id. The remedy for a due process
violation under Zadvydas is typically release of the petitioner under conditions of supervision.
E.g., Gomez v. Mattos, 2025 WL 3101994, at *7 (D. Nev.); Trejo v. Warden of ERO, 2025 WL
2992187, at *10 (W.D. Tex.); Douglas v. Baker, 2025 WL 2997585, at *5 (D. Md.).
Under these principles, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion to enforce without prejudice.
As of the date of this order, Petitioner has been detained for roughly five months since her order
of removal became administratively final on December 22, 2025, which is under the
presumptively reasonable six-month period of detention that Zadvydas recognized.
IV. Conclusion
Petitioner’s motion to enforce judgment, Doc. 14, is denied without prejudice.
Petitioner’s Motion for Immediate Release, Doc. 12, is denied as moot.
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-00156-KG-KK Document 20 Filed 05/29/26 Page 3 of 3