District of New Jersey • 3:26-cv-00142

#1

Jan 08, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus V. LUIS SOTO, ET ALL. ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-16977196.), filed by LUIS SOTO. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet COVER SHEET)(DUQUE-ISERN, STEPHANIE) (Entered: 01/08/2026)

#2

Jan 09, 2026

First MOTION for Order to Show Cause V. LUIS SOTO, ET ALL. by LUIS ANTONIO ESTRADA ORREGO. (DUQUE-ISERN, STEPHANIE) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

#3

Jan 09, 2026

First MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order V. LUIS SOTO, ET ALL. by LUIS ANTONIO ESTRADA ORREGO. (DUQUE-ISERN, STEPHANIE) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

#4

Jan 09, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's petition (Petition) for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1 ), motion for an order to show cause ("OTSC") (Motion for OTSC) (ECF No. 2 ), and motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") (Motion for TRO) (ECF No. 3 ). Pursuant to the All Writs Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), Respondents SHALL NOT TRANSFER Petitioner from the District of New Jersey, and SHALL NOT REMOVE Petitioner from the United States, pending further order of this Court. The Motion for OTSC is DENIED as moot. To the extent Petitioner moves for a TRO on the grounds that he may be transferred from the District, or removed from the United States (see ECF No. 3 at 1), the TRO Motion is DENIED as moot. To the extent that Petitioner seeks a TRO ordering his immediate release from immigration detention (see id. at 1), the TRO Motion is DENIED without prejudice because such remedies are greater than the relief Petitioner could obtain in his underlying Petition. As Petitioner indicates, even under his reading of the relevant immigration statutes, he is still subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), albeit with an entitlement to seek release on bond. (See ECF No. 1 Para. 30.) The Clerk of Court shall terminate the Motions pending at ECF No. 2 and ECF No. 3 . According to the Petition, Respondents are presently detaining Petitioner under the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), pursuant the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). (See ECF No. 1 Para. 26.) Under this Court's recent decision in Chen v. Soto, No. 25-17198, 2025 WL 3527239 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2025), the Court holds that Petitioner is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires an opportunity to seek bond, id. at *2-4. Specifically, it appears that, inter alia: (1) since approximately 2016, Petitioner has continuously resided in the United States; (2) he has no criminal history and has significant family and community ties to the United States (including a U.S. citizen infant son and a U.S. citizen stepson with autism); and (2) on or about December 6, 2025, in the interior of the United States, Petitioner was detained by ICE officers while he was on his way to work. (ECF No. 1 Paras. 23-24.) Based on these alleged facts, Chen controls this present matter. Chen, 2025 WL 3527239, at *4. In accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this Text Order, Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge who shall assess whether he presents a flight risk or a danger to the community, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8), (d)(1). Within three (3) days of that bond hearing, Respondents shall file a written notice of the outcome of that hearing with this Court. If Respondents contend that Chen does not control, they shall file an expedited answer within five (5) days of the date of entry of this Text Order, and Petitioner may file a reply within three (3) days of the date of filing of Respondents' expedited answer. Finally, the Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1 ), the attached document (ECF No. 1-1), the Motion for OTSC (ECF No. 2 ), the Motion for TRO (ECF No. 3 ), and this Text Order to the Chief, Civil Division, United States Attorney's Office, at the following email address: USANJ-HabeasCases@usdoj.gov. So Ordered by Judge Georgette Castner on 1/9/2026. (jmh) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

Jan 09, 2026

Text Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

Jan 09, 2026

Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

Jan 09, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Jan 09, 2026

Docket Annotation (public)

Jan 09, 2026

4 Text Order and ECF Nos. 1, 2, and 3 emailed to USANJ-HabeasCases@usdoj.gov. (jmh)

Jan 09, 2026

Set Deadlines as to 2 First MOTION for Order to Show Cause V. LUIS SOTO, ET ALL.. Motion set for 2/2/2026 before Judge Georgette Castner. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (dmr3)

Jan 09, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Georgette Castner. (ps)

#5

Jan 10, 2026

Substitution of Attorney - Attorney FRANCES C. BAJADA terminated. Attorney ANDREW BOCCIO for PAMELA BONDI,ANDREW BOCCIO for TODD LYONS,ANDREW BOCCIO for KRISTI NOEM,ANDREW BOCCIO for LUIS SOTO,ANDREW BOCCIO for JOHN TSOUKARIS added.. (BOCCIO, ANDREW) (Entered: 01/10/2026)

#6

Jan 14, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

#7

Jan 16, 2026

Reply to Response (NOT Motion)

#8

Feb 14, 2026

Letter

#9

Feb 17, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on Respondents' submission of a letter response (Response) (ECF No. 6) to this Court's January 9, 2026 Text Order (ECF No. 4 ), which ordered Respondents to file an expedited answer if they contend that Chen v. Soto, No. 25-17198, 2025 WL 3527239 (D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2025), does not control this matter. Petitioner filed a reply to the Response. (ECF No. 7.) In their Response, Respondents argue that this proceeding is distinguishable because Chen addressed mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), while Petitioner is purportedly subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). (ECF No. 6 at 1.) According to Respondents, they detained Petitioner under § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) (which provides that an alien with a positive credible fear determination "shall be detained" throughout the removal proceedings) because he was (1) apprehended at a port of entry or near the border, (2) placed into expedited removal proceedings, and (3) passed a credible fear screener interview. (Id. at 1-2.) Respondents further suggest that the fact Petitioner was released after first being apprehended and later re-detained does not change detention from § 1225(b)(1) to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. at 2.) However, under this Court's recent decisions in Flores v. Rokosky, No. 25-18988, 2026 WL 84434 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2026), and Mistry v. Rokosky, No. 25-17647, ECF No. 15 ("Mistry Jan. 28, 2026 Mem. & Order"), the Court concludes that "Respondents have failed to offer support for their position that Petitioner was paroled as a noncitizen detained under § 1225(b)(1)," Flores, 2026 WL 84434, at *2 (citations omitted); Mistry Jan. 28, 2026 Mem. & Order at 6 (citations omitted). In fact, the record establishes that, instead of being paroled under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (which allows for humanitarian parole for noncitizens detained under § 1125(b)), Petitioner was released on his own recognizance pursuant to § 1226. (ECF No. 6-3 at 1.) Accordingly, "the Court again holds that Petitioner is subject to detention under § 1226(a), which requires an opportunity to seek bond." (ECF No. 4 (citing Chen, 2025 WL 3527239, at *2-4); see also Mistry Jan. 28, 2026 Mem. & Order at 8 (holding that petitioner is subject to detention under § 1226(a) and entitled to an opportunity to seek bond); Flores, 2026 WL 84434, at *3 (same). The petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 1241 (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED to the extent that Petitioner seeks an order requiring Respondents to provide him with a bond hearing before an immigration judge ("IJ") pursuant to § 1226(a). Within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this Text Order, in accordance with § 1226(a), Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an IJ who shall assess whether Petitioner presents a flight risk or a danger to the community, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 236.1(c)(8), (d)(1). Within three (3) days of that bond hearing, Respondents shall file a written notice of the outcome of that hearing with this Court. So Ordered by Judge Georgette Castner on 2/17/2026. (jmh) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

Feb 17, 2026

Text Order

#10

Feb 24, 2026

Letter

#11

Feb 24, 2026

Letter

#12

Feb 25, 2026

Letter

#13

Feb 27, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court upon the parties' letters. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12 .) This Court ordered that Petitioner receive a bond hearing within seven days of February 17, 2026. (ECF No. 9 .) On February 24, 2026, Petitioner filed a letter stating Respondents violated this Court's Order because Petitioner had not yet received a bond hearing. (ECF No. 10 .) On February 25, 2026, Respondents filed a letter stating that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "requested a hearing from the immigration court, and the immigration court originally scheduled a hearing for February 24, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., within this Court's seven-day deadline." (ECF No. 11 at 1.) "[D]ue to a technical issue" at the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), Respondents submit that "the immigration court did not call Petitioner's hearing and instead rescheduled it for 8:30 a.m." on February 25, 2026. (Id. at 2.) Respondents state that this rescheduling was out of ICE's control because EOIR, not ICE, schedules bond hearings. (Id. at 1-2.) On February 25, 2026, Respondents filed a letter stating that Petitioner received a bond hearing that morning and, at that hearing, an Immigration Judge granted Petitioner's request for release under bond of $30,000. (ECF No. 12 at 1.) In support of Respondents' explanation for why Petitioner did not receive a bond hearing within the timeframe required by this Court, Respondents attach a Hearing Notice. (ECF No. 11 -1 at 2.) That Hearing Notice, however, states that Petitioner's hearing was "scheduled" for February 25, 2026 at 8:30 A.M. (Id.) The Notice specifically crosses out the option that the Hearing was "rescheduled" for that time. (Id.) This appears to be inconsistent with Respondents' representation to the Court that the initial hearing was scheduled for February 24, 2026. Accordingly, by no later than March 6, 2026, Respondents shall confirm by certification (i) whether there was an initial hearing scheduled for February 24, and, if so, (ii) why the Notice indicates otherwise and (iii) the nature of EOIR's technical issue requiring such rescheduling. So Ordered by Judge Georgette Castner on 2/27/2026.(jmh) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Feb 27, 2026

Text Order

#14

Feb 28, 2026

Letter

#15

Mar 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court upon Respondents' letter. (ECF No. 14 .) Respondents have adequately addressed the Court's concerns raised in the Court's Text Order regarding Petitioner's bond hearing. (ECF No. 13 .) Having resolved this issue and having granted Petitioner all available relief, no further issues remain for adjudication. The Court LIFTS its Order (ECF No. 4 ) prohibiting Petitioner's transfer from the District of New Jersey and his removal from the United States pending further order of this Court. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this matter. So Ordered by Judge Georgette Castner on 03/02/2026. (jmh) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

Mar 02, 2026

Order of Dismissal AND Text Order