District of New Jersey • 2:25-cv-16700

#1

Oct 17, 2025

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-16739891.), filed by Adrian Lizandro Lojano Naula.(GROTAS, PAUL) (Entered: 10/17/2025)

Oct 20, 2025

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Oct 20, 2025

Case assigned to Judge Esther Salas. (tjg, )

#2

Oct 21, 2025

Order

#3

Oct 28, 2025

Amended Document (NOT Motion/Complaint)

Oct 28, 2025

Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

Oct 28, 2025

Set Deadlines as to 3 MOTION for leave to Amend the Petition. Motion set for 12/1/2025 before Judge Esther Salas. 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. (sm)

#4

Nov 04, 2025

Certificate of Service

#5

Nov 04, 2025

Order on Motion to Amend/Correct

#6

Nov 20, 2025

Letter

#7

Nov 20, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#8

Nov 25, 2025

Response to Habeas Petition

#9

Dec 08, 2025

Reply to Response (NOT Motion)

#10

Dec 12, 2025

Letter

#11

Jan 02, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#12

Jan 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER : This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") (D.E. No. 11 ("TRO Motion")). The Immigration Judge denied bond, and Petitioner remains in immigration detention. (See id. at 1). Petitioner disputes Respondents' position that he is subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) and requests a TRO ordering his immediate release. (See id. at 1, 7). However, immediate release is a greater remedy than the relief Petitioner could obtain in his underlying amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (D.E. No. 3 -2). See Ramos v. Soto, No. 25-15315, 2025 WL 3251447, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2025) ("Although the Government does not have authority to detain Petitioner without bond under § 1225(b), under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), an alien may be detained so long as [he] is provided a bond hearing upon request at which [he] can secure release by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] is neither a danger nor a flight risk." (citing Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 278-79 (3d Cir. 2018))). Furthermore, the primary purpose of a preliminary injunction or a TRO is the maintenance of the status quo until a decision on the merits of a case is rendered. See Acierno v. New Castle Cnty., 40 F.3d 645, 647 (3d Cir. 1994). Where, as here, the movant seeks to alter the status quo, that party must meet a heavy burden. See Punnett v. Carter, 621 F.2d 578, 588 (3d Cir. 1980); see also Bennington Foods LLC v. St. Croix Renaissance, Grp., LLP, 528 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir. 2008). Petitioner has failed to meet his burden (and, in fact, he acknowledges that there is case law supporting Respondents' interpretation of the scope of mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(1)(B) (D.E. No. 9 at 8)). Accordingly, the TRO Motion is DENIED without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall terminate the Motion pending at D.E. No. 11 . Within five (5) days of the date of this Text Order, Respondents shall file a response to the arguments raised in the TRO Motion and explain why such arguments do not provide a basis for granting habeas relief. Within three (3) days of the date of filing of the Respondents' response, Petition may file a reply to the Respondents' response. So Ordered by Judge Esther Salas on 1/7/2026. (ek) (Entered: 01/07/2026)

Jan 07, 2026

Text Order

#13

Jan 12, 2026

Letter

#14

Jan 14, 2026

Letter

#15

Feb 04, 2026

Letter

#16

Feb 12, 2026

Letter

#17

Feb 12, 2026

Letter

#18

Feb 14, 2026

Letter