District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-08587

#1

Jul 12, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17648759.), filed by SYLLA LAYE-SEKOU. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ICE Locator Sheet, # 2 Exhibit 2026 Expedited Removal, # 3 Exhibit 2022 Parole, # 4 Exhibit 2022 Sworn Stmt, # 5 Exhibit 2022 Incomplete I860, # 6 Civil Cover Sheet)(CARDENAS, VERONICA) (Entered: 07/12/2026)

#2

Jul 12, 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 7/12/2026. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/12/2026)

Jul 12, 2026

Judge Katharine S. Hayden added. (jml, )

Jul 12, 2026

Add and Terminate Judges

Jul 12, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

#3

Jul 13, 2026

ORDER TO ANSWER: Respondents shall file an answer to the Petition within 7 days of this Order. Signed by Judge Katharine S. Hayden on 7/13/2026. (dmr3) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

#4

Jul 17, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by CHRISTOPHER JAMES STRATIGEAS on behalf of JONATHAN FLORENTINO, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LUIS SOTO (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(STRATIGEAS, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

#5

Jul 20, 2026

RESPONSE to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by JONATHAN FLORENTINO, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LUIS SOTO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Apr. 28, 2022 Form I-213 Record of Deportable_Inadmissible Alien, # 2 Exhibit B - Apr. 29, 2022 Form I-860 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, # 3 Exhibit C - Apr. 29, 2022 Form I-296 Notice to Alien Ordered Removed_Departure Verification, # 4 Exhibit D - May 9, 2022 Interim Notice Authorizing Parole, # 5 Exhibit E - Feb. 6, 2026 Form I-869 Record of Negative Credible Fear Finding, # 6 Exhibit F - Order of the Immigration Judge)(STRATIGEAS, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

#6

Jul 27, 2026

REPLY to Response re 5 Response to Habeas Petition,,. (CARDENAS, VERONICA) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

#7

Sep 10, 2026

Letter from Petitioner Requesting Decision. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration declaration of Laye)(CARDENAS, VERONICA) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#8

Sep 15, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Laye Sekou Sylla's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1, "Petition") seeking an individualized bond hearing or immediate release from custody. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Guinea who illegally entered the United States on or about April 28, 2022. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) On or about the same day, he was apprehended and processed for expedited removal. (Id.) After claiming a fear of return to his home country, he was released on parole on May 9, 2022, pending a credible fear interview ("CFI"). (Id.; ECF No. 5-4.) On February 6, 2026, Petitioner received a negative finding in his CFI (ECF No. 5-5.), which was affirmed by immigration judge ("IJ") Shana Chen on February 9, 2026 (ECF No. 5-6). Petitioner has been detained at Delaney Hall Detention Facility since on or about January 20, 2026. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Petitioner asserts that, because he was paroled into the United States, and later given a CFI, his detention should be governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), entitling him to a bond hearing. In the alternative, he asserts that, if his removal order is final, his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 has become prolonged and he is entitled to a bond hearing or release as a matter of due process. Petitioner alleges in the Petition that his expedited removal order was not properly issued, because it was not signed by an immigration officer. (ECF No. 1 at 8.) However, in his reply (ECF No. 6), Petitioner states that he is not requesting that this Court review the validity of the removal order, but rather, whether detention pursuant to the expedited removal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1225, can be used to detain him after he was paroled into the country years ago. (ECF No. 6 at 3 ("Petitioner does not ask this Court to review... the validity of any removal order.").) This Court has limited jurisdiction to review the validity of an expedited removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2)(A)-(C). However, it may review whether an order was in fact issued and whether it pertains to Petitioner. Here, Petitioner's removal order was considered issued and finalized when it was signed by the IJ. See Cifuentes v. Bondi, No. 26-00679, 2026 WL 657814, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2026) (holding that the expedited removal order was administratively final and the Court lacked jurisdiction to review its validity after the IJ affirmed the negative CFI, despite the fact that the order was not originally signed by an immigration officer). "An expedited removal order is final when it orders an alien deported, and the order is not subject to administrative review." Duyzings v. Warden, FCI Fort Dix, No. 23-21574, 2024 WL 1406647, at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 2, 2024); see also 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(2)(ii) (a noncitizen issued an expedited removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) has "[n]o entitlement to hearings and appeals" before an IJ or the Board of Immigration Appeals). IJ Chen issued a final removal order on February 9, 2026, when she affirmed the negative fear finding of Petitioner's CFI. (ECF No. 5-6.) Therefore, Petitioner's detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231, "when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days." 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). Within the removal period, "the Attorney General shall detain the alien." Id. (emphasis added). Detention authority under § 1231 may extend beyond the removal period as necessary to effectuate removal. § 1231(a)(6); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). The Supreme Court has held that due process places limits on the length of time a noncitizen may be detained beyond the removal period where there is "no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. The presumptively reasonable period of detention is six months. Id. ("[W]e do believe, however, that Congress previously doubted the constitutionality of detention for more than six months."). It is well established that the Due Process Clause prohibits the unreasonably prolonged detention of a noncitizen who has a final order of removal where there is "no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682, 701. Petitioner has now been in custody for nearly eight months. Zadvydas also held that the noncitizen must first demonstrate that his or her removal is unlikely: "After this 6-month period, once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing." Id. at 701 (emphasis added). "Only if he makes this initial showing does the burden shift back to the government, which 'must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.'" Beckford v. Lynch, 168 F.Supp.3d 533, 539 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701). Petitioner asserts that his removal is not likely given a previously failed attempt to remove him to Guinea and he received no explanation as to why he was not removed. (ECF No. 7-1 at 1.) Therefore, Petitioner has made his initial showing that his removal to Guinea is not likely in the reasonably foreseeable futureRespondents must rebut that claim and demonstrate that his removal is significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondents file a response by noon on or before September 19, 2026, with sufficient evidence to rebut the showing that Petitioner's removal is not likely, including a removal plan and travel documents. So Ordered by Judge Katharine S. Hayden on 9/15/26. (cm, ) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

Sep 15, 2026

Order

#9

Sep 18, 2026

Letter from Respondents re: Petitioner's Significant Likelihood of Removal in the Reasonably Foreseeable Future re 8 Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Raymond Reyna, Deportation Officer, # 2 Exhibit B - Travel Document in Place of Passport)(STRATIGEAS, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

#10

Sep 25, 2026

Letter from Petitioner re: Reply to government's response. (CARDENAS, VERONICA) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

#11

Oct 06, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Laye Sekou Sylla's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1, "Petition") seeking an individualized bond hearing or immediate release from custody. This Court previously held that Petitioner was properly detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and that he had made an initial showing under Zadvydas that his removal was not significantly likely in the foreseeable future. (ECF No. 8); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). Respondents were ordered to rebut that initial showing and file evidence of a travel document for Petitioner. (ECF No. 8.) Respondents filed a declaration from Deportation Officer Raymond Reyna explaining why Petitioner was not previously removed and a copy of Petitioner's travel document for Guinea which will make his removal possible "in a matter of weeks." (ECF Nos. 9-1 at 3; 9-2.) Petitioner filed a reply with several arguments that he believes support his immediate release from custody. (ECF No. 10.) First, he reiterated his stance that his expedited removal order is invalid. (Id.) The Court's previous order, however, already addressed this issue and determined that Petitioner's removal order became final at the time the immigration judge signed it on February 9, 2026, and, therefore, Petitioner is properly detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. (ECF No. 8); see also Cifuentes v. Bondi, No. 26-00679, 2026 WL 657814, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2026) (holding that the expedited removal order was administratively final and the Court lacked jurisdiction to review its validity after the IJ affirmed the negative CFI, despite the order missing signatures from an immigration officer). Second, Petitioner argues that Respondents did not have the authority to arrest and detain him, because 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) should not have been applicable to him at the time of arrest. (ECF No. 10 at 6.) However, as this Court previously explained, Petitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231, not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). (ECF No. 8.) Further, even if Petitioner's arrest was initially unlawful, "the remedy for an unlawful arrest is the suppression of evidence obtained therefrom, not release from custody." See Noori v. Soto, No. 26-951, 2026 WL 631642 at * 2 (D.N.J. March 5, 2026) (quoting Valenzuela v. Semaia, No. 25-02853, 2025 WL 3635578, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025) (citing I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039 (1984))); Reano v. Rokosky, No. 26-1745, 2026 WL 1245541, at *3 (D.N.J. May 6, 2026). This Court has already addressed Petitioner's challenges to his detention and the validity of his removal order and issued its decision. (ECF No. 8) The only issue before the Court now is whether Respondents met their burden to prove that Petitioner's removal in the foreseeable future is significantly likely. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Petitioner points out that Deportation Officer Reyna's declaration states that Petitioner was previously placed on a flight for Ghana, not for Guinea, and that clarification is needed regarding the country to which Petitioner will be removed. (ECF No. 9-1 at 2.) The Court agrees that clarification is necessary to determine if Respondents have met their burden. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Respondents shall file a response by the end of the day on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, clarifying the country to which they intend to remove Petitioner.. So Ordered by Judge Katharine S. Hayden on 10/6/26. (cm, ) (Entered: 10/06/2026)

Oct 06, 2026

Order

#12

Oct 07, 2026

Letter from Respondents re: Petitioner's Removal Destination re 11 Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Raymond Reyna)(STRATIGEAS, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 10/07/2026)

#13

Oct 13, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Laye Sekou Sylla's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1, "Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued immigration detention. This Court previously ordered Respondents to clarify the country of removal for Petitioner. (ECF No. 11.) Respondents filed a letter response (ECF No. 12), in which they clarified that they intend to remove Petitioner to Guinea, his country of citizenship and nationality, and that their previous statement that he was originally placed on a flight to Ghana was an error. (ECF No. 12-1.) Respondents certify that Petitioner was placed on a flight to be removed to Guinea in April 2026 but was taken off the flight because it was full. (Id.) Petitioner then filed this Petition, and his transfer was enjoined, before another attempt at his removal could be made. (Id.) Respondents have submitted evidence that they have Petitioner's valid travel document for Guinea in their possession and have stated that he can be removed within weeks. (ECF Nos. 9; 12-1.) The lack of further obstacles to removal outside of this pending Petition, Respondents' certification that they previously took steps to remove Petitioner prior to the filing of the Petition, and the fact that Petitioner's travel document expires on November 17, 2026, provide sufficient support for the assertion that Petitioner's removal will occur within weeks. (ECF No. 9.) Therefore, Respondents have met their burden under Zadvydas to rebut Petitioner's initial showing, and the Court is satisfied that his removal is significantly likely in the foreseeable future. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED without prejudice. The Court's Order enjoining Petitioner's transfer is LIFTED. The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this matter. So Ordered by Judge Katharine S. Hayden on 10/13/26. (cm, ) (Entered: 10/13/2026)

Oct 13, 2026

Order

Oct 14, 2026

Terminate Civil Case

#14

Oct 18, 2026

Notice of Appeal (USCA Philadelphia)

#15

Oct 18, 2026

Stay

#16

Oct 19, 2026

USCA Notice of Docketing (Case No & Mgr Assigned)

Oct 19, 2026

USCA Appeal Fees

Oct 19, 2026

QC - Notice of Appeal fee

Oct 19, 2026

Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings