District of New Jersey • 1:26-cv-05878

#1

May 22, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17453601.), filed by MAMADOU BAH. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit WH Order, # 3 Exhibit Order of Supervision)(CARDENAS, VERONICA) (Main Document 1 replaced on 5/22/2026) (mfr). (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#2

May 22, 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 5/22/2026. (mfr) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

May 22, 2026

Case Assigned to Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb. (mfr)

May 22, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

May 22, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

May 22, 2026

QC - Fillable PDF

May 22, 2026

CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The Petition, Docket entry 1, filed by Petitioner on 5/22/2026 was uploaded prior to being flattened. Before uploading fillable forms to ECF you must flatten the file to prevent other users from manipulating or editing the information. The easiest way to flatten a PDF form is by selecting Print to PDF and saving the flattened form, other PDF software may differ. Please visit our website under Flattening PDF Forms for guidance. Your document has been corrected. This message is for informational purposes only. (mfr, )

May 26, 2026

Order

#4

May 30, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#5

Jun 02, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

#6

Jun 04, 2026

Letter

#7

Jul 02, 2026

Letter

#8

Jul 06, 2026

TEXT ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Mamadou Bah's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Dkt. No. 1 ("Petition"). Petitioner is a citizen of Guinea who entered the United States without inspection in May 2005. Dkt. No. 5 ("Answer"); Dkt. No. 5-1, Ex. A ("2005 Notice to Appear"). Petitioner is married to a U.S. citizen, and they have three U.S. Citizen children. Petition at 2-3. Petitioner failed to appear in immigration court on August 12, 2005; therefore, an immigration judge ("IJ") ordered Petitioner removed in absentia. Answer at 1, Dkt. No. 5-2, Ex. B ("Aug. 12, 2005 IJ Order"). Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, which was granted on February 14, 2006, and his removal proceedings were terminated on July 19, 2010. Dkt. No. 5-3, Ex. C ("Oct. 11, 2011 I-213"). In 2012, Petitioner was paroled into the United States for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1911, and he was convicted of falsely representing that he was a U.S. citizen to a Customs and Border Patrol ("CBP") officer at the U.S./Canada border. Id. at 2; Dkt. No. 5-5, Ex. E ("Judgment"). As a result of his conviction and his status as an inadmissible noncitizen, on June 29, 2012, Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear in immigration court. Dkt. No. 5-6, Ex. F ("June 29, 2012 Notice to Appear"). On July 19, 2013, Petitioner was ordered removed to Guinea but granted withholding of removal as to Guinea. Dkt. No. 5-7, Ex. G ("July 19, 2013 IJ Order"). On the same day, Petitioner was released from custody under an Order of Supervision. Petition, Dkt. 1-3 ("Order of Supervision"). For the next thirteen years, Petitioner complied with all reporting requirements, maintained valid employment authorization, and appeared for biometrics processing with USCIS. Petition at 2. On May 22, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") officers arrested Petitioner when he was dropping his children off at school. Id. Upon Petitioner's arrest, ICE issued a warrant for his removal based on a final order by an immigration judge. Dkt. No. 5-8, Ex. H ("Warrant of Removal").Petitioner asserts his arrest, in absence of compliance with regulations governing revocation of an order of supervised release, violates the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), the agency's regulations, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Petition at 10-15. Additionally, Petitioner argues his final removal order detention under 8 U.S.C. 1231 is unlawful under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) because the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") failed to establish that his removal to a third country is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Petition at 2-3. Respondents oppose habeas relief because Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal, which subjects him to a 90-day mandatory detention period, and a six-month presumptively reasonable detention period under Zadvydas, beginning on May 22, 2026. Answer at 3-4. In reply, Petitioner contends his August 12, 2005 removal order was reopened and proceedings were terminated in 2006; therefore, his final removal order is governed by the July 19, 2013 grant of withholding of removal. Dkt. No. 6 ("Reply") at 1-2. Further, Respondents failed to provide notice and process for revoking his Order of Supervision and failed to demonstrate that his removal to a third country is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Dkt. No. 6 ("Reply") at 2. For relief, Petitioner seeks release under the same conditions that existed prior to his re-detention on May 22, 2026. Reply at 7.The Court holds that Petitioner's due process claim under Zadvydas fails because Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal on July 19, 2013, the finality of which is unaffected by the grant of withholding of removal to Guinea. "[B]ecause withholding of removal is a form of country specific relief... nothing prevents DHS from removing the [noncitizen] to a third country [.]" Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 531-32 (2021) (citation modified). Petitioner's 90-day mandatory detention period began on May 22, 2026. 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1)(B); July 19, 2013 IJ Order at 1. Therefore, Petitioner's final removal order detention is not unlawfully prolonged. Furthermore, the Court also holds that it lacks jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(9) and 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) to address Petitioner's claim that his arrest on May 22, 2026 without notice and the process due under the governing agency regulations violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(9) provides: "[j]udicial review of all questions of law and fact... arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States... shall be available only in judicial review of a final order [of removal]." 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) provides: "no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any [noncitizen] arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any [noncitizen] under this chapter." "Section 1252(b)(9) works as a zipper clause, channeling most claims that even relate to removal into [petitions for review ("PFR") in the appropriate Court of Appeals]... ensur[ing] that petitioners get only one bite at the apple[.]" Khalil v. President, United States, 164 F.4th 259, 275 (3d Cir. 2026) (citation modified). A district court on habeas review lacks jurisdiction pursuant to 8 USC 1252(g) and 1252(b)(9) over a claim that the "Government ended his supervision period without first giving him notice and a revocation interview... [in violation of] the agency's rules and thus due process. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(l)(1)." Tazu v. Att'y Gen. United States, 975 F.3d 292, 298 (3d Cir. 2020); accord Roe v. Oddo, No. 3:25-CV-128, 2025 WL 3030692, at *13 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2025). Such legal questions concern "the scope of the Attorney General's discretion to re-detain" and "are bound up with (and thus 'aris[e] from') an 'action taken' to remove him." Tazu, 975 F.3d at 299 (quoting E.O.H.C. v. Sec'y United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 950 F.3d 177, 184 (3d Cir. 2020)). Petitioner can raise his claims in a petition for review, therefore, "[t]here is no constitutional problem with funneling them there." Id. at 299. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner's challenge to his arrest and re-detention for removal. The Petition, Dkt. No. 1, is DENIED without prejudice as to Petitioner's Zadvydas claim and with prejudice as to Petitioner's challenge to his re-detention without notice and compliance with regulations for revocation of his Order of Supervised Release. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 07/06/2026. (Costigan, Roberta) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

Jul 06, 2026

Order