District of New Jersey • 1:26-cv-02765

#1

Mar 17, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17208144.), filed by Clinton Nsom Ngong. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Memorandum, # 3 Appendix)(PARK, ALINA) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#2

Mar 17, 2026

TEXT ORDER. Respondents are hereby enjoined from transferring Petitioner from New Jersey pending further Order of the Court. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 3/17/2026. (jml, ) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

Mar 17, 2026

Add and Terminate Judges

Mar 17, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

Mar 17, 2026

Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb added. (jml, )

#3

Mar 18, 2026

TEXT ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Clinton Nsom Ngong's Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Dkt. No. 1, (the "Petition"), and motion for temporary restraining order, Dkt. No. 1-2 ("TRO Motion") (docketed as Memorandum). Petitioner challenges his immigration detention without a bond hearing. In accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases ("Habeas Rule 4"), applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b), scope of the Rules, this Court has screened the Petition for dismissal and determined dismissal without a full answer is not warranted. Respondents shall file an expedited answer to the Petition within 7 days. Whereas the Court has enjoined Petitioner's transfer from New Jersey and ordered an expedited answer for resolution of the Petition, Petitioner's TRO Motion, Dkt. No. 1-2, is DISMISSED as moot. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 03/18/2026. (Costigan, Roberta) (Entered: 03/18/2026)

Mar 18, 2026

Order

#4

Mar 25, 2026

Letter

#5

Mar 25, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Mar 30, 2026

TEXT ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Clinton Nsom Ngong's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241, Dkt. No. 1 ("Petition"), challenging his detention by immigration authorities under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b) as unlawful. Respondents filed an answer to the Petition, Dkt. No. 4 ("Answer"). Respondents do not challenge this Court's jurisdiction and do not dispute the material facts alleged in the Petition. Answer at 1-2. Respondents submit Petitioner is lawfully detained as an applicant for admission without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), Answer at 2-3, and they rely on a statutory interpretation rejected by this Court and courts within this district. Answer at 1, n. 1. Under recent decisions in this District interpreting Section 1225(b)(1), Rivas Rodriguez v. Rokosky, No. 25-cv-17419 (CPO), 2025 WL 3485628, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 2025) (granting petition in 1225(b)(1) matter; collecting cases); Perez Silva v. Soto, No. 25-cv-16577 (JKS), 2025 WL 3485658, at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2025) (same); A-J-R v. Rokosky, No. 25-cv-17279 (RMB), 2026 WL 25056, at *4-5 (D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2026) (same), the Court holds that Petitioner is unlawfully detained under Section 1225(b)(1), but may be subject to discretionary detention under § 1226(a), which entitles him to a bond hearing. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Petition is GRANTED. In accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), within seven days of this Order, Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge who shall assess whether Petitioner presents a flight risk or a danger to the community pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 236.1(c)(8), (d)(1). Within three days of that bond hearing, Respondents shall file a written notice of the outcome of that hearing with this Court. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 03/30/2026. (Costigan, Roberta) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

Mar 30, 2026

Order

#7

Apr 06, 2026

Letter

#8

Apr 08, 2026

Enforce Judgment

Apr 09, 2026

Set Deadlines as to 8 MOTION to Enforce Judgment. Motion set for 5/4/2026 before Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb. 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. (sms2)

Apr 09, 2026

Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#9

Apr 10, 2026

Exhibit (to Document)

#10

Apr 20, 2026

Letter

#11

Apr 22, 2026

Letter

#12

Apr 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Clinton Nsom Ngong's Motion to Enforce the Writ of Habeas Corpus. ("Motion to Enforce, Dkt. No. 8.") On March 30, 2026, this Court granted Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 and ordered Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge to make a flight risk/danger to the community determination under 8 C.F.R. 236.1(c)(8) and (d)(1). (Order, Dkt. No. 6.) Petitioner argues his bond hearing was fundamentally unfair in violation of his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights because the IJ did not discuss all evidence in the record, which contradicts the IJ's conclusion that Petitioner poses a flight risk. (Motion to Enforce at 8-10.) Respondents oppose the Motion to Enforce because Petitioner received due process, and it is beyond the Court's authority to review the IJ's discretionary determination by re-weighing the evidence or making credibility findings. ("Letter Brief, Dkt. No. 10.") Respondents submitted the April 6, 2026 Bond Hearing Transcript (Dkt. No. 11-1.)Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(e), the Court may not review the IJ's discretionary denial of bond. Petitioner, however, has a due process right to: (1) findings of fact based on the record before the IJ; (2) the opportunity to make arguments on his own behalf; and (3) an individualized determination of flight risk or danger to the community. Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022). The Court, having reviewed the Bond Hearing Transcript, Dkt. No. 11-1) determines that Petitioner received due process. Petitioner's challenge to the weight the IJ applied to the evidence in the record may only be raised on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). 8 C.F.R. 236.1(d)(3); Ghanem, 2022 WL 574624, at *3 (finding argument that BIA did not conduct an individualized analysis of evidence amounted to improper evidence weighing beyond the court's authority to consider.) The Motion to Enforce, Dkt. No. 8, is DENIED, and the Clerk shall CLOSE this matter. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 04/28/2026. (Costigan, Roberta) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

Apr 28, 2026

Order

Apr 28, 2026

***Civil Case Terminated. (lm, )

Apr 28, 2026

Terminate Civil Case