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

#5

Jul 20, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

#6

Jul 27, 2026

Reply to Response (NOT Motion)

#7

Sep 10, 2026

Letter

#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