District of New Jersey • 2:25-cv-18540

#1

Dec 11, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-16904057.), filed by SEHER AYGUN. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Ex. A ICE Detainee Locator last visited 11Dec2025, # 3 Exhibit Ex. B Asylum Application Receipt for Petitioner's Spouse, # 4 Exhibit Ex. C Petitioner's Asylum Biometrics Notice, # 5 Exhibit Ex. D Petitioner's Employment Authorization Document)(ARCHAMBEAULT, MATTHEW) (Entered: 12/11/2025)

#2

Dec 11, 2025

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by SEHER AYGUN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(ARCHAMBEAULT, MATTHEW) (Entered: 12/11/2025)

#3

Dec 12, 2025

TEXT ORDER: Acting pursuant to the All Writs Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the Court hereby enjoins the Respondents and those acting for them from removing the Petitioner from this District or causing his removal. This is an administrative stay, the purpose of which is to briefly freeze the status quo so that this case can be evaluated by the Court. See Zheng v. Bondi, 2025 WL 280542, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2025). Counsel for the Respondents shall immediately provide this Order to those acting on behalf of the Respondents on this matter. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 12/12/25. (ro, ) (Entered: 12/12/2025)

#4

Dec 12, 2025

TEXT ORDER: In light of the Respondents' representations in other cases with nearly identical factual circumstances, see, e.g., Chiquito Barzola v. Warden (2:25-cv-17326); Martinez Ron v. Lyons (2:25-cv-17359); Mboup v. Field Off. Dir. (2:25-cv-16882), the Court understands the Respondents to agree that, under the undersigned's prior decisions, the Petitioner here is entitled to be treated as if covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Based on representations made in another case, the Court also understands the Respondents to take the position that the Petitioner need not opt out of the class certified in Bautista v. Santacruz, 2025 Wl 3288403 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025), to seek habeas relief before this Court. If the Respondents disagree (or if this this case is factually distinguishable from those), the Respondents shall file a brief letter explaining why on or before December 15 at 9:00am. If no persuasive letter is received by then, the Petitioner shall be granted a bond hearing by December 15 at 5:00pm, unless the Petitioner objects, in which case the parties shall file a proposal for a short adjournment on or before December 15 at 1:00pm. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 12/12/25. (ro, ) (Entered: 12/12/2025)

Dec 12, 2025

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Dec 12, 2025

Order

Dec 12, 2025

Case Assigned to Judge Michael E. Farbiarz. (mfr)

#5

Dec 14, 2025

Substitution of Attorney

#6

Dec 24, 2025

Letter

#7

Jan 05, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall respond to the Petitioner's letter at ECF 6 via a letter brief filed on or before January 8 at 10am. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 1/5/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

Jan 05, 2026

Order

#8

Jan 08, 2026

Letter

#9

Jan 09, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner argued his liberty was restrained, via the requirement he wear an ankle monitor --- even though the Immigration Judge had not imposed that condition. See ECF 6 . Restraints on liberty must be authorized by law. If the Respondents view the Petitioner as having misstated the factual record, or if there is a lawful basis for imposition of the referenced ankle monitor in spite of the Immigration Judge not having imposed that requirement, the Respondents shall file a letter explaining their position or before January 12 at noon. If no letter is received by then, or if the letter is not persuasive, the Court will order that the ankle monitor be promptly removed. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 1/9/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

Jan 09, 2026

Order

#10

Jan 12, 2026

Letter

#11

Jan 12, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner shall respond to the Respondents' letter at ECF 10 on or before January 15 at 5:00pm. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 1/12/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 01/12/2026)

Jan 12, 2026

Order

#12

Jan 15, 2026

Letter

#13

Jan 16, 2026

Order

#14

Jan 21, 2026

Letter

#15

Jan 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents' request for an adjournment at ECF 14 raises difficult issues. On the one hand, certain noncitizens are being currently detained by the Respondents without bail hearings, and this violates federal law --- as every federal district judge to take up the question in this District has held. That implies a need for speed, see Y.Z. v. Soto, 2025 WL 3564652 (D.N.J. Dec. 12, 2025), and supports the conclusion that an adjournment is inappropriate. On the other hand, last week's Third Circuit decision may suggest that federal district judges in this Circuit are not empowered to take up the relevant class of cases. If the Third Circuit's decision is as "complex" as the Respondents suggest, that is a strong reason for a modest adjournment --- because this Court's duty is to accurately understand (and then follow) the Court of Appeals' opinion, and a court's understanding is virtually always aided by getting the benefit of the parties' considered views. How the Court will opt to steer between the competing considerations set out just above depends to an extent on the second question raised by the Court in its ECF 13 order of January 16 --- namely, how to think about the Court of Appeals' decision now, in the period before the mandate has issued. At least one federal appellate court has weighed in on this question, see 16AA Wright & Miller's Federal Practice & Procedure § 3987 (5th ed.) (citing In re Zermeno-Gomez, 868 F.3d 1048, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2017)), but this Court has not conducted extensive legal research. The Respondents shall file a letter brief that does not reach the "complex" questions of "statutory interpretation... raised by Khalil," ECF 14, as to which it is consulting with senior officials. The letter brief shall be filed on or before 2:30pm today. The letter brief shall answer only the question of "the precedential status of Khalil in the period before the Court of Appeals issues its mandate." ECF 13 . In light of that letter brief, the Court will rule promptly on the Respondents' request for an adjournment. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 1/22/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

#16

Jan 22, 2026

Response (NOT Motion)

#17

Jan 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER: In light of the Respondents' letter at ECF 16, the extension requested at ECF 14 is granted. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 1/22/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 01/22/2026)

Jan 22, 2026

Order AND Text Order

Jan 22, 2026

Order

#18

Jan 26, 2026

Letter

#19

Jan 27, 2026

Letter

#20

Jan 29, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall file a letter brief on or before February 2 at 10:00am. It shall answer two questions in detail and with full reference to the governing caselaw. First, whether a federal court of appeals considering a petition for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals issues a final order of removal can consider whether the immigration courts should have treated the relevant petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (as opposed to under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)) and therefore as eligible for a bail hearing. Second, and relatedly, whether any decision of the immigration courts to treat a petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (as opposed to under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)) "is a 'matter[ ] on which the validity of the final order [of removal entered by the BIA] is contingent.'" Khalil v. President, United States, 2026 WL 111933, at *10 (3d Cir. Jan 15, 2026) (quoting Massieu v. Reno, 91 F.3d 416, 422 (3d Cir. 1996)). If yes, the Respondents shall explain why this is so. If no, the Respondents shall explain why this is not so --- and also what the implications of that are for whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) strips habeas jurisdiction from district courts asked to consider whether a detained noncitizen purportedly covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) should be treated as covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (The briefing to this point from the Respondents has been glancing, and not commensurate with the "complex[ity]" of this issue, as they have described it. See ECF 14 . It is imperative that the letter brief due to be filed on Monday be a sustained treatment of the relevant legal issues.) The Petitioner is free to weigh in on the issues described here, by means of a letter brief to be filed on or before February 3 at 10:00am. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 1/29/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

Jan 29, 2026

Order

#21

Feb 02, 2026

Letter

#22

Feb 05, 2026

Opinion AND Order