Deyvis Padilla Lopez v. Dora Castro et al.

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

DEYVIS PADILLA LOPEZ,

Petitioner, v. No. 2:26-cv-00709-KG-GJF DORA CASTRO et al.,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Deyvis Padilla Lopez’s Motion to Enforce Judgment, Doc. 11, and the Government’s Response, Doc. 13. Petitioner contends that the bond hearing1 held after the Court’s prior order, Doc. 9, did not comply with the due process requirements set forth in that order. For the reasons stated, the Court denies the motion. I. Background

Petitioner came to the United States from Cuba on December 8, 2023. Doc. 8 at 1. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents apprehended and detained Petitioner, id. at 1–2, but promptly released him on his own recognizance. Doc. 1 at 11–14. On November 8, 2025, Petitioner was arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, on state criminal charges. Doc. 8 at 2. After the state charges were dismissed, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a warrant for Petitioner’s arrest and moved him into DHS custody. Id. DHS transferred Petitioner to the Otero County Processing Center in Chaparral, New Mexico, on December 3, 2025. Docs. 1 at 9, 8 at 2.

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking a bond hearing or 1The digital audio recording of the Bond Hearing held on April 1, 2026, is on file with the Court and lodged at Doc. 14 (“Audio Recording”). immediate release from immigration detention. Doc. 1 at 7. The Court concluded that Petitioner’s detention violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and ordered the Government to provide a bond hearing within seven days, at which it had the burden to justify his continued detention by clear and convincing evidence, or release him. Doc. 9 at 4–5.

An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) presided over the hearing on April 1, 2026. See Doc. 13 at 2. The IJ began by noting that this Court’s previous order “has shifted the burden to DHS to provide evidence of danger to the community and flight risk.” Audio Recording at 1:07–22. The Government argued that Petitioner was arrested for battery in November 2025, and that Petitioner did not have a sponsor, any place to receive mail, or any person who could ensure his presence in immigration proceedings. Id. at 1:48–2:48. The Government also noted that because Petitioner entered the country without inspection on December 8, 2023, he would be subject to the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule, which applies “a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility to noncitizens who neither avail themselves of a lawful, safe, and orderly pathway to the United States nor seek asylum or other protection in a country through which they travel.” Id.; see 88 Fed. Reg. 31314 (May 16, 2023). The IJ denied bond, finding that Petitioner is “a danger to the community due to [his] recent arrest for domestic violence.” Id. at 12:43–13:05. As well, the IJ determined that Petitioner is a flight risk “due to [his] lack of United States ties, lack of sponsor information, and [his] manner of entry.” Id. at 13:36–46. Petitioner moves to enforce the Court’s prior order, arguing that the IJ failed to shift the burden to the Government. See generally Doc. 11. The Government opposes the motion. See Doc. 13.

II. Analysis

Petitioner’s bond hearing satisfied the due process requirements set forth in this Court’s prior order. In granting Petitioner’s habeas petition, this Court held that due process required shifting the burden to justify detention to the Government. Doc. 9 at 4–5. Nothing in the record demonstrates that the IJ failed to apply the burden-shifting framework. In fact, the IJ explicitly referred to this Court’s order and acknowledged that DHS bore the burden of justifying detention. Moreover, the Government made an individualized argument that Petitioner is a danger to the community because of his arrest for battery and is a flight risk because of his lack of U.S. ties or a sponsor.

To the extent Petitioner contests the IJ’s bond determination, the Court lacks the authority to consider Petitioner’s claims. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516 (2003) (noting that § 1226(e) precludes review of the Attorney General’s “discretionary judgment” or “decision” regarding detention or release but permits constitutional challenges to detention). A petitioner seeking review of a bond decision must either appeal the denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals or file a request for a bond redetermination. Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 527 (2021); see also 8 CFR § 236.1(d)(1), (3). III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, Petitioner’s motion is denied.

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.