District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-02309

#1

Mar 05, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17163744.), filed by MARTIN ALONSO SOTO HERNANDEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(MINOGUE, ALEXANDRA) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

#2

Mar 05, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by MARTIN ALONSO SOTO HERNANDEZ. (MINOGUE, ALEXANDRA) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

Mar 05, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Jamel K. Semper. (mfr)

Mar 05, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

#3

Mar 10, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, Martin Alonso Soto Hernandez, who is presently detained at Delaney Hall. (ECF No. 1 .) Petitioner alleges that his continued detention is unlawful and effected without due process of law because Respondents have erroneously concluded that he is "seeking admission" to the United States and therefore subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), denying him the opportunity to seek release on bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (See id.) Petitioner further moves for temporary restraining and injunctive relief, asserting that immediate judicial intervention is warranted in light of the alleged absence of lawful statutory authority for his continued detention and the significant hardship imposed upon his family, including the impending medical procedures of his U.S. citizen child. (Id.) Having reviewed the submissions and the circumstances presented, the Court finds that temporary relief is warranted to preserve the status quo while Respondents respond to the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner's request for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED to the extent that Respondents shall not remove or transfer Petitioner outside the District of New Jersey during the pendency of these proceedings. It is therefore ORDERED that Respondents shall SHOW CAUSE, no later than March 16, 2026, why the Petition for habeas corpus relief should not be granted. Petitioner may file a reply brief within three (3) business days after the filing of Respondents' response. Petitioner shall serve a copy of this Order and the habeas petition upon Respondents within two (2) business days of the entry of this Order and shall promptly file proof of service on the docket. So Ordered by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 3/10/2026. (sms) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

Mar 10, 2026

Order to Answer

#4

Mar 11, 2026

Certificate of Service

#5

Mar 11, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Mar 16, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

#7

Mar 17, 2026

Reply to Response (NOT Motion)

#8

Mar 23, 2026

Letter

#9

Apr 16, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1 ). Respondents have filed a letter response to the petition stipulating to the facts alleged in the petition and acknowledging that they rely on the same statutory interpretation set forth In the Matter of Hurtado, rejected by many of the Courts within this District. (ECF No. 6.) The Court finds Petitioner is detained under 8 USC section 1226(a) which requires an opportunity for a bond hearing and GRANTS the petition. It is therefore on this 16th day of April, 2026, ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC section 2241 is GRANTED; and is further ORDERED that Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 USC section 1226 (a) and 8CFR section 236.1 (d) within seven (7) days of the date of this Order; it is further ORDERED that within three (3) days of the bond hearing, Respondents shall file a letter advising the Court of the outcome, upon which the Court will close this matter unless there has been a violation of this Court`s Orders. So Ordered by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 4/16/2026. (sms) (Entered: 04/16/2026)

Apr 16, 2026

Text Order

#10

Apr 23, 2026

Status Report

#11

Apr 28, 2026

Brief

#12

Apr 30, 2026

TEXT ORDER: In light of the Court's Order entered on April 16, 2026 (ECF No. 9 ), directing Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and Petitioner's subsequent submission that the bond hearing and determination of the Immigration Judge were "constitutionally defective" (ECF No. 9 at 7) the Court finds it appropriate to determine whether the bond hearing comported with the requirements of due process and fundamental fairness. See, e.g., Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203-05 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED to submit (1) briefing, (2) the transcript of the April 21, 2026 bond hearing, or if unavailable, an audio recording of the hearing; and (3) any written decision or oral ruling issued by the Immigration Judge setting forth the basis for the bond determination. Respondents' submission shall be filed on or before May 7,2026. Petitioner may file a reply on or before May 12, 2026. So Ordered by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 4/29/2026. (sms) (Entered: 04/30/2026)

Apr 30, 2026

Text Order

#13

May 07, 2026

Response (NOT Motion)

#14

May 08, 2026

Reply to Response (NOT Motion)

#15

May 08, 2026

Letter

#16

May 25, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#17

May 26, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No.16.) Defendants are hereby directed to file any opposition briefs by June 2, 2026. Plaintiffs are directed to file any reply briefs by June 5, 2026. So Ordered by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 5/26/2026. (sms) (Entered: 05/26/2026)

May 26, 2026

Text Order

#18

May 28, 2026

Letter

#19

May 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER - The Court is in receipt of the emergent letter filed by Petitioner on May 28, 2026 (ECF No. 18.) The Government is ORDERED to respond to the alleged Due Process issues asserted by Petitioner, specifically regarding Petitioner's access to counsel, counsel for Petitioner's lack of notice of administrative charges, alleged signing of documentation outside the presence of counsel, and interviews allegedly conducted outside the presence of counsel. Respondents are further ORDERED to provide the Court with authority that controls Petitioner's rights to counsel at administrative hearings. Respondents shall file their response within 24 hours of this Order. So Ordered by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 5/28/2026. (jd, ) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

May 28, 2026

Text Order

#20

May 29, 2026

Response (NOT Motion)

#21

May 29, 2026

Reply to Response (NOT Motion)

#22

Jun 01, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner's Motion (ECF No. 16), seeking relief predicated, inter alia, upon the asserted denial of counsel in connection with administrative disciplinary proceedings occurring during Petitioner's detention. The Court notes at the outset that the constitutional right to counsel does not extend to administrative disciplinary hearings. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570 (1974). While due process requires certain minimum procedural protections in the context of institutional discipline, those protections do not encompass a right to counsel as a matter of constitutional entitlement. Accordingly, to the extent the Motion rests upon an asserted deprivation of counsel in administrative disciplinary proceedings, it is without legal foundation. For the reasons stated herein, and upon review of the submissions of the parties, the Motion (ECF No. 16) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jamel K. Semper on June 1, 2026.(mfr) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

Jun 01, 2026

Text Order

#23

Jun 03, 2026

Letter

#24

Jun 17, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner's request for review of the April 21, 2026 bond hearing conducted before the Immigration Judge. (ECF No. 11.) The Court has reviewed the hearing transcript, the parties' submissions, and the administrative record transmitted in connection with the Immigration Judge's bond determination. In a fundamentally fair bond hearing, due process has three essential elements. A non-citizen "(1) is entitled to factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to him or her; (2) must be allowed to make arguments on his or her own behalf; and (3) has the right to an individualized determination of his [or her] interests." Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Correctional Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022). Having conducted that review, the Court finds that the April 21, 2026 bond hearing satisfied the requirements of due process and fundamental fairness. Petitioner was represented by counsel, afforded the opportunity to present evidence and argument, and the Immigration Judge considered documentary submissions and articulated the basis for the determination on the record, including findings as to danger to the community and risk of flight grounded in the evidentiary record. The record reflects an individualized assessment of the relevant statutory factors and does not demonstrate any procedural deprivation that would undermine the reliability or integrity of the proceeding. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the bond hearing comported with the minimum requirements of fundamental fairness under Ghanem. So Ordered by Judge Jamel K. Semper on 6/17/2026. (sms) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

Jun 17, 2026

Order

Jun 17, 2026

Order of Dismissal