Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GEORGINA SORAYDA LOPEZ NARVAEZ,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-01509-KG-DLM
TODD LYONS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Levan Asatiani’s pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Doc. 1, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 6. For the reasons below, the Court
denies the petition.
I. Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Nicaragua who entered the United States on September 21, 2022
without inspection or admission. Doc. 6 at 1. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
arrested her on April 1 2026. Id. Petitioner remains detained at the Otero County Processing
Center in New Mexico. Id. She received a bond hearing on April 23, 2026. Id. The
Immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioner bond because she was found to be a flight risk, her
“form of relief is speculative” and she “has a conviction for failure to appear.” Doc. 6-1 at 2.
Petitioner challenges her detention and bond denial, arguing that her previous bond
hearing did not “result in a constitutionally adequate custody determination.” Doc. 1 at 1.
Petitioner requests the Court order her immediate release or a “constitutionally adequate bond
hearing.” Id. at 18. The Government opposes relief, arguing that the Court “does not have
jurisdiction” to review the IJ decision from April. Doc. 6 at 1.
Case 2:26-cv-01509-KG-DLM Document 7 Filed 06/08/26 Page 1 of 2

2
II. Analysis
The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) establishes distinct detention regimes
depending on whether a noncitizen is “seeking admission” to the United States. See Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288–89 (2018). Relevant here, § 1226(a) authorizes the arrest and
detention, “on a warrant issued by the Attorney General,” of noncitizens “pending a decision on
whether [they are] to be removed.” Noncitizens detained under this second detention regime are
“entitled to individualized bond hearings at the outset of detention.” Velasquez Salazar, 806 F.
Supp. 3d 1231, 1239 (D.N.M. 2025).
The Court declines to grant relief because Petitioner received a bond hearing on April 23,
2026. See Doc. 6-1. At that hearing, the IJ considered the record and found that Petitioner failed
to carry her burden of showing she is not a flight risk. Id. at 1. That is all § 1226 requires. To
the extent Petitioner challenges the IJ’s discretionary denial of bond, that challenge is properly
directed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
III. Conclusion
The Court denies the Petition, Doc. 1.
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-01509-KG-DLM Document 7 Filed 06/08/26 Page 2 of 2