District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-02752

#1

Mar 17, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17207288.), filed by JAMER NUNEZ-FLOREZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit A - Booking Record, # 4 Exhibit B - Parole Notification, # 5 Exhibit C - USCIS Receipt Notice, # 6 Exhibit D - CFI Notice, # 7 Exhibit E - CFI Decision, # 8 Exhibit F - Referral to IJ, # 9 Exhibit G - Warrant, # 10 Exhibit H - IJ Decision, # 11 Exhibit I - Burman Affidavit)(HUFSTADER, REBECCA) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#2

Mar 17, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Michael E. Farbiarz. (mfr) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#3

Mar 17, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner shall not be removed from the state of New Jersey or from the United States. A bond hearing shall be conducted on or before March 19 at 3:00pm, unless, by March 18 at 3:00pm, the Respondents file a letter explaining either (i) that the Petitioner has asked to adjourn the bond hearing or (ii) that, due to relevant and meaningful procedural or factual distinctions, this case is not controlled by the Court's prior decisions in Chiquito Barzola v. Warden (2:25-cv-17326); Martinez Ron v. Lyons (2:25-cv-17359); Mboup v. Field Off. Dir. of N.J. Immigr. & Customs Enf't (2:25-cv-16882); and Ortega Alvarez v. Noem (2:25-cv-17401). The Respondents shall file a status update letter on or before March 20 at 3:00pm. In addition to what is set out above, a declaration from the United States Attorney's Office shall be filed on the schedule set out below. It shall indicate that the United States Attorney's Office has (i) received this Order and conveyed it to the appropriate personnel at ICE; and (ii) provided ICE with written legal advice on the subject of ICE's obligation to comply with this Order. A declaration from ICE shall also be filed. It shall indicate that ICE has (i) received this Order; and (ii) received written legal advice from the United States Attorney's Office on the subject of ICE's obligation to comply with this Order. Each declaration shall be filed on the public docket of the Court on or before 1:00pm on March 18. The first declaration must be executed by either the leader of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office or by the Chief of the Civil Division. The second declaration must be executed by either the Newark ICE Field Office Director or by the Newark ICE Field Office Deputy Director. The declarations may be signed by hand or electronically. Finally, the United States Attorney's Office shall immediately file a letter on the Court's public docket if an Order of the Court is violated in connection with this case. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 3/17/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#4

Mar 17, 2026

DECLARATION of Civil Chief re 3 Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order,,,,,,,, by TODD LYONS, KRISTI NOEM, RUBEN PEREZ, LUIS SOTO. (BASIAK, JOHN) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

Mar 17, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

Mar 17, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

#5

Mar 18, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by TASHA MARIE BRADT on behalf of TODD LYONS, KRISTI NOEM, RUBEN PEREZ, LUIS SOTO (BRADT, TASHA) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#6

Mar 18, 2026

DECLARATION of Ruben Perez Jr., DFOD, ICE ERO re 3 Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order,,,,,,,, by TODD LYONS, KRISTI NOEM, RUBEN PEREZ, LUIS SOTO. (BRADT, TASHA) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#7

Mar 18, 2026

Letter from U.S. Attorney's Office re: Petitioner's Detention Authority re 3 Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order,,,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (I-213), # 2 Exhibit B (ER Order), # 3 Exhibit C (IJ Order))(BRADT, TASHA) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

#8

Mar 18, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the Respondent's letter brief at ECF 7, arguing that this case is meaningfully distinct from the Court's prior immigration habeas decisions "because [the] Petitioner is subject to detention under § 1225(b)(1), not § 1225(b)(2)." See ECF 7 at 3. The Petitioner shall file a response on or before March 23 at 10:00am. The Respondents shall file a reply, if any, by March 25 at 10:00am. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 3/18/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

Mar 18, 2026

Text Order

#9

Mar 23, 2026

Response (NOT Motion)

#10

Mar 31, 2026

TEXT ORDER: In light of Exhibit K to ECF 9, the Court holds that the Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and is therefore entitled to a bail hearing before an immigration judge. One shall be conducted on or before April 2 at 11:00am, unless the Petitioner files a letter before April 1 at 11:00am indicating that he seeks an adjournment of the bail hearing. If he seeks an adjournment, the hearing will go forward at a time on April 6 or April 7 that is amenable to both the Petitioner and the Respondents. The Respondents shall file a status update letter on April 3. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 3/31/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

Mar 31, 2026

Text Order

#11

Apr 01, 2026

Letter

#12

Apr 03, 2026

Letter

#13

Apr 06, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall file a status update on or before April 7 at 10:00am. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 4/6/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#14

Apr 06, 2026

Letter

Apr 06, 2026

Text Order

#15

Apr 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER: A petition was filed, see ECF 1, a bail hearing was ordered, see ECF 10, and it was conducted. See ECF 14 . Therefore, it appears that the petition should be dismissed. See Chiquito Barzola v. Warden, 2025 WL 3443487, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2025). If a party has a different view, it should explain why in a brief letter, to be filed on or before April 10 at 5:00pm. If no persuasive letter is received, the petition will be promptly dismissed. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 4/7/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

Apr 07, 2026

Text Order

#16

Apr 09, 2026

Letter

#17

Apr 13, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall file a response to the Petitioner's letter at ECF 16 on or before April 16. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 4/13/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

Apr 13, 2026

Text Order

#18

Apr 16, 2026

Response (NOT Motion)

#19

Apr 17, 2026

Temporary Restraining Order

#20

Apr 17, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall file a letter brief responding to the Petitioner's arguments at ECF 19 and ECF 16 on or before April 21 at noon. The brief shall respond to the Petitioner's arguments on the merits. The Court is in receipt of the Respondents' prior response arguing that the Petitioner's request is tantamount to a motion for reconsideration. See ECF 18 . So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 4/17/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

Apr 17, 2026

Text Order

#21

Apr 21, 2026

Response (NOT Motion)

#22

Apr 21, 2026

Reply to Response (NOT Motion)

#23

May 04, 2026

Letter

#24

May 22, 2026

Exhibit (to Document)

#25

May 27, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner has raised three main arguments for further relief. First, the Petitioner argues that that release is warranted under Lucas v. Hadden, 790 F.2d 365 (3d Cir. 1986). See ECF [19-1], ECF 24 . But the Court is not aware of any cases granting release under Lucas in circumstances similar to the ones here. And the Petitioner has not pointed the Court to any. Accordingly, this claim must be denied. See Popoca Solis v. Soto, Case No. 2:26-cv-4241, 04/27/2026 Text Order (ECF 11) (D.N.J. Apr. 27, 2026). Second, the Petitioner contends that the immigration-court bond hearing he received was fundamentally unfair. See ECF 23 . But the evidence does not support that conclusion. Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, the immigration judge did not, "fail[] to identify any rational basis for his decision." Contra ECF 23 at 2. The Petitioner's third argument is that re-detaining him, after he was previously granted parole, violates his Due Process rights. See ECF 16 . This may possibly stand on more solid footing. Taking slightly different tacks, courts have held that some individualized assessment (as to dangerousness, risk of flight, changed circumstances, etc.) is generally required in connection with the undoing of a non-citizen's previously-ordered release on parole. See, e.g., Rodriguez-Acurio v. Almodovar, 811 F. Supp. 3d 274 (E.D.N.Y. 2025); see also Flores Salazar v. Moniz, 2025 WL 1703516 (D. Mass. June 11, 2025); Gomez Villalobos v. Crawford, 2026 WL 1165576 (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2026); cf. also O.F.C. v. Almodovar, 2026 WL 74262 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2026). In this case, the Respondents have not come forward with any information as to (i) whether any individualized assessment has been made, and (ii) if so, when and by whom the assessment was made. And in the absence of such information, it is not clear that the Petitioner's re-detention is consistent with the United States Constitution, as interpreted in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). On or before May 29, the Respondents shall file a letter that lays out all of the relevant factual information at (i) and (ii) and fully explains their legal position. The Petitioner shall respond on or before June 2. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 5/27/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

May 27, 2026

Text Order

#26

May 29, 2026

Letter

#27

Jun 02, 2026

Letter

#28

Jun 05, 2026

TEXT ORDER: When the Petitioner first entered the United States in 2022, he was briefly detained by immigration officials before being paroled into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). See ECF 1 at 2; see also ECF 26 at 1. That parole is said to have "automatically terminate[d]" one year later. See ECF 21 . But under DHS regulations, after the automatic termination of parole, "[i]f the exclusion, deportation, or removal order [of a particular alien] cannot be executed within a reasonable time, the alien shall again be released on parole unless in the opinion of [one of a limited number of enumerated] official[s]... the public interest requires that the alien be continued in custody." 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(1)-(2). Moreover, the Supreme Court has indicated that immigration officials must "make individualized determinations" when granting parole under Section 1182(d)(5)(A). Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846, 857 (1985). "[T]he statutory text is less clear regarding the termination of parole," but "[c]ommon sense suggests... that parole given only on a case-by-case basis is to be terminated only on such a basis." Doe v. Noem, 2025 WL 1505688, at *1 (1st Cir. 2025). Consistent with this, courts across the country have concluded that some individualized assessment (as to dangerousness, risk of flight, and/or changed circumstances) is generally required in connection with the undoing of a non-citizen's previously-ordered release on parole. See, e.g., Rodriguez-Acurio v. Almodovar, 811 F. Supp. 3d 274 (E.D.N.Y. 2025); Munoz Materano v. Arteta, 804 F. Supp. 3d 395 (S.D.N.Y 2005); Flores Salazar v. Moniz, 2025 WL 1703516 (D. Mass. June 11, 2025); Gomez Villalobos v. Crawford, 2026 WL 1165576 (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2026); cf. also O.F.C. v. Almodovar, 2026 WL 74262 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2026). Accordingly, on May 27, the Court directed the Respondents to "come forward with any information as to (i) whether any individualized assessment has been made, and (ii) if so, when and by whom the assessment was made." See 05/27/2026 Text Order. But the Respondents have failed to do so. They have stated only that "at the time of the [Petitioner's] March 2026 re-detention, the Unit Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer... noted that the Petitioner's parole terminated in December 2023 and had served its purpose by allowing him to attend his credible fear determination." ECF 26 at 1. But as the Petitioner points out, see ECF 27, the Respondents have not represented that the "Unit Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer" has the authority to determine that the purpose of the Petitioner's parole has been served, under Section 1182(d)(5) and relevant regulations. Moreover, there is no reason to think that the purpose of the Petitioner's parole under Section 1182(d)(5) was to allow him to attend a credible fear interview. The Petitioner's credible fear interview was not scheduled until more than two years after the expiration of his parole, and per Section 1182(d)(5) the purpose of such parole is, as relevant here, to account for "urgent humanitarian reasons." For the above-stated reasons, because the Respondents have not shown that the Petitioner has been afforded an individualized determination, the Petitioner's detention is in violation of the laws of the United States, and he shall be promptly released from immigration custody. The Respondents shall file a status update letter on or before June 8 at noon. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/5/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

Jun 05, 2026

Text Order

#29

Jun 07, 2026

Letter

#30

Jun 08, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The relief requested by the Petitioner has been granted. Accordingly, it appears that the injunction at ECF 3 should be lifted, and the motion at ECF 19 terminated at moot. If a party has a different view, it should explain why in a brief letter, to be filed on or before June 10 at 5:00pm. If no persuasive letter is received, this case will be promptly closed. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/8/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/08/2026)

Jun 08, 2026

Text Order

Jun 12, 2026

Order of Dismissal