Maria del Rosario Junco Castellanos v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

MARIA DEL ROSARIO JUNCO CASTELLANOS, Petitioner, v. No. 2:26-cv-0579-KG-DLM PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, El Paso Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and DORA CASTRO, WARDEN, Otero County Processing Center, Respondents.1

ORDER TO ANSWER AND ENJOINING TRANSFER OUT OF DISTRICT Before the Court is Petitioner Maria del Rosario Junco Castellanos’ pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) (Petition). Petitioner is detained at the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico and has paid the habeas filing fee. Petitioner states she entered the United States on June 30, 2022 and was released on her own recognizance. (Doc. 1) at 5, 21-23 (Order of Release on Recognizance). She was taken into immigration custody on November 12, 2025, and she has not been provided a bond hearing. (Doc. 1) at 5. An Immigration Judge granted her petition for asylum on December 17, 2025, and the Government has appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Id. at 6, The pro se Petition names the Warden as Respondent, which is standard in non-immigration cases. The Court adds the above-mentioned parties as Respondents in this case. See Lowmaster v. Dir., Bureau of Prisons, 2024 WL 5135970, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 17, 2024) (“the Court notes that it routinely substitutes the” proper parties as “respondent in habeas cases”); Danderson v. Page, 2024 WL 3913051, at *2 (E.D. Okla. Aug. 20, 2024) (substituting the proper party respondent in a habeas case).

37-40 (Order of the Immigration Judge). Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody and for an order preventing her transfer out of this District while her Petition is pending. Id. at 10.

Having conducted an initial review of the Petition, the Court finds the alleged facts raise a colorable claim for relief. Petitioner alleges she has not been provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and it does not appear that she is being detained pursuant to a final order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1 (“An order of removal made by the immigration judge at the conclusion of proceedings under section 240 of the Act shall become final: (a) Upon dismissal of an appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals.”); see also Garcia Sanchez v. Noem, et al., 25- cv-1219 KG/JFR (concluding petitioner was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1225, and ordering Respondents to provide a bond hearing); Pu Sacvin v. De Anda- Ybarra, 2025 WL 3187432, at *3 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.) (same); Danierov v. Noem, 2026 WL 45288, at *2 (D.N.M.) (Gonzales, J.) (same).

The Clerk’s Office has electronically served a copy of the petition in this matter on all federal respondents by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. See (Doc. 2). The United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) shall answer the Petition within ten (10) business days of entry of this Order and show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. See Habeas Rules 1(b), 4 (courts have discretion to set a time for respondents to answer a habeas petition). Petitioner may file an optional reply within ten (10) business days after the answer brief is filed.

If the USAO declines to timely respond, the Court may enter a separate order directing the Immigration Court to conduct a bond hearing in accordance with its prior rulings on this issue. To preserve jurisdiction, the Court will grant Petitioner’s request for an order preventing her transfer out of the District of New Mexico. If a final removal order is entered, the USAO can ask the Court to lift the injunction.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The United States Attorney’s Office must answer the Petition within ten (10) business days of entry of this Order and show cause why the requested relief should not be granted; 2. If Petitioner wishes to file an optional reply, she must do so within ten (10) business days after Respondents’ response is filed; 3. The Government is enjoined from transferring Petitioner from the District of New Mexico while these proceedings remain pending, absent express written authorization from this Court; and 4. The Clerk’s Office shall add the additional party Respondents set forth in the caption of this Order to the docket of this case.

/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.