Simon Joachim Blomstroem Petersen v. Todd Blanche, in his official capacity as...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

SIMON JOACHIM BLOMSTROEM PETERSEN,

Petitioner, v.

Case No. 1:26-cv-01686-MIS-JFR TODD BLANCHE, in his official capacity as

Acting Attorney General of the United

States; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security; DAVID

VENTURELLA, in his official capacity as

Acting Director of the U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement; MARY DE ANDA-

YBARRA, in her official capacity as El Paso

Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement; and WARDEN of the

Cibola County Correctional Center,

Respondents.

ORDER DENYING REVIEW OF PETITIONER’S BOND HEARING

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Simon Joachim Blomstroem Petersen’s Reply, ECF No. 15, filed July 17, 2026.

On June 21, 2026, the Court issued an Order granting Petitioner’s first Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). ECF No. 11. The Court found 8 U.S.C. § 1226 applied to Petitioner and ordered Respondents provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing. Id. at 3. On June 24, 2026, Respondents provided Petitioner with a bond hearing. Notice at 1, ECF No. 13. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s bond because

The Respondent was admitted into the US in June of 2012. The Respondent was convicted on May 10, 2021, for PCS, which triggered his removal proceedings. The Respondent was ordered removed on June 18, 2026. The Respondent is deemed a danger to the community as well as a flight risk based on his prior criminal conviction and removal order. Id. On July 17, 2026, Petitioner filed a Reply asking the Court the review “whether the June 24, 2026 bond proceedings satisfied the constitutional requirements identified in this Court's June 21, 2026 Order after a removal order had already been entered and later cited as part of the basis for finding Petitioner to be a flight risk.” ECF No. 15 at 2.

The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce its Order granting Petitioner’s Petition, ECF No. at 4, and the Court has jurisdiction to review whether a bond hearing is constitutionally adequate, Grant-Davis v. Anda-Ybarra, No. 2:26-CV-00054-MIS-LF, 2026 WL 823095, at *3 (D.N.M. Mar. 23, 2026). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), however, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review a discretionary bond denial decision. Id. The IJ here based his decision on both Petitioner’s prior criminal conviction and the removal order. Notice at 1, ECF No. 13. The Court agrees with Petitioner that basing a bond denial decision on a removal order may not be constitutionally adequate, since the decision would be based on a DHS action, not the petitioner. But the IJ here also based his decision on Petitioner’s criminal record. That independent reason makes the decision discretionary and therefore Court has no jurisdiction to review it. Grant-Davis, 2026 WL 823095, at *3. Petitioner may appeal the bond denial decision to the BIA as appropriate. Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for the Court to review the bond denial decision is DENIED.

Merced Shviddnud

MARGARET STRICKLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE