District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-05651

#1

May 18, 2026

Second PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number CNJDC-17435757.), filed by ITALO ORLANDO SILVA LOJA. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit ICE Detainee Locator, # 3 Exhibit Initial NTA 2010, # 4 Exhibit DHS Release on Bond 2010, # 5 Exhibit Order Termination Proceedings 2023, # 6 Exhibit I-130 Petition Approval, # 7 Exhibit TPS Approval Notices, # 8 Exhibit Letters from Employees, # 9 Exhibit New NTA 2026, # 10 Exhibit Bond Denial 2026 )(BAYAS, MARLON) (Entered: 05/18/2026)

May 18, 2026

Add and Terminate Judges

May 18, 2026

Judge Michael E. Farbiarz added. (jml, )

#2

May 19, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States. This is an administrative stay, the purpose of which is to briefly freeze the status quo and preserve the Court's jurisdiction should it exist. See Zheng v. Bondi, 2025 WL 280542, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2025). In addition, 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 3:00pm on May 19.The first declaration must be executed by either the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey or Chief of the Civil Division for this district. 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. The United States Attorney's Office shall also immediately file a letter on the Court's public docket if an Order of the Court is violated in connection with this case. The Respondents shall lastly file an answer to the Petitioner's pleading on or before May 20 at 5:00pm. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 5/19/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

#3

May 19, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by JACOB HERIC on behalf of TODD BLANCHE, TODD LYONS, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, RUBEN PEREZ, LUIS SOTO, JOHN TSOUKARIS (HERIC, JACOB) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

#4

May 19, 2026

DECLARATION of Dep. Field Off. Dir. R.P., Jr. by TODD BLANCHE, TODD LYONS, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, RUBEN PEREZ, LUIS SOTO, JOHN TSOUKARIS. (HERIC, JACOB) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

#5

May 19, 2026

Letter from Civil Chief Requesting Two Hour 15 Minute Extension Nunc Pro Tunc re 2 Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order,,,,,,. (BASIAK, JOHN) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

#6

May 19, 2026

DECLARATION of Civil Chief re 2 Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order,,,,,, by TODD BLANCHE, TODD LYONS, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, RUBEN PEREZ, LUIS SOTO, JOHN TSOUKARIS. (BASIAK, JOHN) (Entered: 05/19/2026)

#7

May 19, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

May 19, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

#8

May 20, 2026

Order

#9

May 21, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Taking slightly different tacks, courts have held that some individualized assessment (as to subjects like dangerousness, risk of flight, and changed circumstances) is generally required in connection with the undoing of a non-citizen's previously-ordered release on bond. See, e.g., Khabazha v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2025 WL 3281514 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025); 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 such an individualized assessment has been made, and (ii) if so, when and by whom it was made. In the absence of such information, it is not clear that revocation of the Petitioner's bond is consistent with relevant regulations (as Accardi and the Administrative Procedure Act generally require), or the United States Constitution (as interpreted in Mathews v. Eldridge). On or before May 26 at 9:00am, the Respondents shall file a letter that fully fills out the factual record here as to (i) and (ii), and, in light of that, explains the legal basis for the Petitioner's current detention. The Petitioner shall respond to the Respondents' letter on or before May 28 at 5:00pm. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 5/21/2026. (ps) (Entered: 05/21/2026)

May 21, 2026

Text Order

#10

May 25, 2026

Letter

#11

May 26, 2026

Letter

#12

May 27, 2026

Order

#13

Jun 01, 2026

Letter

#14

Jun 05, 2026

TEXT ORDER: In response to the Court's Text Order at ECF 9, the Respondents have made two arguments. First, that the Petition at ECF 1 should be dismissed under the "abuse of the writ" doctrine. See ECF 10 at 1. And second, that the Petitioner's bond cancellation is not inconsistent with the laws of the United States because he was issued an I-319 notice roughly nine months before he was detained. See ECF [10-1] at 1. The Respondents first argument is not persuasive. "As set forth by the Supreme Court in McClesky v. Zant, the abuse of the writ doctrine bars claims which could have been raised in an earlier habeas corpus petition except upon a showing of 'cause and prejudice'" or where "'[a] fundamental miscarriage of justice would result from a failure to entertain the claim.'" Wise v. Fulcomer, 958 F.2d 30, 34 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting McClesky v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991)). For the reasons set forth by the Petitioner at ECF 13, the cause and prejudice exception applies here, and the Court will not dismiss the Petition at ECF 1 under the abuse doctrine. The Respondents' second argument is equally lacking. At ECF 9, the Respondents were directed to "come forward with... in formation as to (i) whether... an individualized assessment has been made [regarding the undoing of the Petitioner's previously-ordered release on bond], and (ii) if so, when and by whom it was made." 05/21/2026 Text Order. But the I-319 notice does not clarify things for the Court. It is opaque, and does not directly indicate, one way or another, whether there has been the required individualized determination. The Respondents shall have until June 8 at 5:00pm to fully address the Court's order at ECF 9 and to provide the Court with any factual information as to whether an individualized determination was made and any legal argument as to why what was done was sufficient. If they do not do so, the Petitioner will be promptly released from immigration custody. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/5/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

Jun 05, 2026

Text Order

#15

Jun 08, 2026

Letter

#16

Jun 30, 2026

Letter

#17

Jul 01, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner shall file a response to the Respondents' letter at ECF 16 on or before July 2. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/1/2026. (wh) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Jul 01, 2026

Text Order

#18

Jul 02, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#19

Jul 03, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the Petitioner's request for an extension of time at ECF 18 . The request is granted. The Petitioner shall file a response to the Respondents' letter at ECF 16 on or before July 7. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/3/2026. (ps) (Entered: 07/03/2026)

Jul 03, 2026

Text Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

#20

Jul 07, 2026

Dismiss

Jul 07, 2026

Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#21

Jul 08, 2026

Order on Motion to Dismiss