District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-02645

#1

Mar 15, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17197432.), filed by Marvin Leonel Mendez Ochoa.(KAPITONOV, PETER) (Entered: 03/15/2026)

#2

Mar 15, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order to Enjoin Respondents from Transferring Petitioner From the Jurisdiction by Marvin Leonel Mendez Ochoa. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(KAPITONOV, PETER) (Entered: 03/15/2026)

#3

Mar 15, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner shall not be removed from the state of New Jersey or from the United States. A bond hearing shall be conducted on or before March 17 at 5:00pm, unless, by March 17 at noon, the Respondents file a letter explaining either (i) that the Petitioner has asked to adjourn the bond hearing or (ii) that, due to relevant and meaningful procedural or factual distinctions, this case is not controlled by the Court's prior decisions in Chiquito Barzola v. Warden (2:25-cv-17326); Martinez Ron v. Lyons (2:25-cv-17359); Mboup v. Field Off. Dir. of N.J. Immigr. & Customs Enf't (2:25-cv-16882); and Ortega Alvarez v. Noem (2:25-cv-17401). The Respondents shall file a status update letter on or before March 18 at noon. In addition to what is set out above, 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 1:00pm on March 16. The first declaration must be executed by either the leader of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office or by the Chief of the Civil Division. 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. Finally, the United States Attorney's Office shall immediately file a letter on the Court's public docket if an Order of the Court is violated in connection with this case. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 3/15/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 03/15/2026)

Mar 15, 2026

QC - Attorney Case Opening

Mar 15, 2026

CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The case you electronically filed has been processed, however, the following deficiencies were found: In the future, please use 463-Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee as the Nature of Suit; Party Information is to be entered in capital letters; Party roles should be Petitioner v. Respondent. The Clerk's Office has made the appropriate changes. Please refer to the Attorney Case Opening Guide for processing electronically filed cases. (jml, )

Mar 15, 2026

Add and Terminate Judges

Mar 15, 2026

Judge Michael E. Farbiarz added. (jml, )

Mar 15, 2026

Text Order

#4

Mar 16, 2026

DECLARATION of Civil Chief re 3 Text Order,,,,,,,, by PAMELA BONDI, TODD LYONS, KRISTI NOEM, LUIS SOTO, JOHN T. TSOUKARIS. (BASIAK, JOHN) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#5

Mar 16, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Mar 16, 2026

Declaration

#7

Mar 17, 2026

Response (NOT Motion)

#8

Mar 25, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner shall file a response to the letter brief at ECF 6 on or before April 1 at 5:00pm. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 3/25/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

Mar 25, 2026

Text Order

#9

Apr 06, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents have explained that this case is not controlled by the Court's prior decisions in Chiquito Barzola v. Warden (2:25-cv-17326); Martinez Ron v. Lyons (2:25-cv-17359); Mboup v. Field Off. Dir. of N.J. Immigr. & Customs Enf't (2:25-cv-16882); and Ortega Alvarez v. Noem (2:25-cv-17401). See ECF 7 . The Petitioner was provided with an opportunity to respond, see ECF 8, but has not done so. Therefore, it appears that the petition should be dismissed. See Chiquito Barzola v. Warden, 2025 WL 3443487, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2025). If a party has a different view, it should explain why in a brief letter, to be filed on or before April 9 at 5:00pm. If no persuasive letter is received, the petition will be promptly dismissed. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 4/6/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

Apr 06, 2026

Text Order

#10

Apr 09, 2026

Letter

#11

Apr 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER: On or before May 1 at 9:00am, the Petitioner and the Respondents shall each file letters clarifying (1) whether (and if so, when) the Petitioner was previously removed from the United States pursuant to an order of removal; (2) whether (and if so, when) the Petitioner reentered the United States without authorization, if he was previously removed; (3) whether (and if so, when and by whom) the Petitioner was served with the notice at ECF [7-3]; (4) whether (and if so, when and by whom) the Petitioner was given an opportunity to contest the determination delineated in that notice; and (5) whether (and if so, when and by whom) the Petitioner was given an opportunity to sign or otherwise acknowledge the notice at ECF [7-3]. The letters shall be backed up by sworn declaration to substantiate the information they lay out. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 4/28/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

Apr 28, 2026

Text Order

#12

Apr 30, 2026

Letter

#13

May 01, 2026

Letter

#14

May 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Per his filings at ECF 1, 2, and 13, the Petitioner presses two arguments. The first argument is not persuasive. It is that the Petitioner cannot lawfully be detained under Section 1231 because he "has lived in the US for over 22 years," and the Respondents therefore cannot meet their burden of showing that the Petitioner "unlawfully reentered the United States after having been removed pursuant to [a] prior order [of removal]." Petition 14. But the Respondents have come forward with records that tend to suggest that the Petitioner was indeed lawfully removed from the United States in 2006. And the Petitioner has put forward no affirmative evidence that contradicts this. If the Petitioner had not in fact been removed, providing proof of his continued presence here should have been straightforward. Declarations, for example, from friends, relatives, or co-workers he knew during the relevant period. Financial records. Etc. The Respondents have satisfied their burden. The Petitioner also has a second argument. He argues that the Respondents did not comply with the process laid out in the relevant regulations for reinstating an order of removal. This spins off a factual dispute. The Respondents have set forth evidence indicating that all of the process due was given to the Petitioner, via a declaration from a federal official. The Petitioner, for his part, has submitted his own declaration, stating that he was "not given a copy" of the relevant notice nor "allowed to review" any such document meaningfully; that he was "not afforded any[y] opportunity to consult [his] immigration lawyer"; that no one "explained the contents of [any such] document" to him nor provided any "fully and accurately" translated document to him. ECF [13-1] at 1-3. Resolving these disagreements could well impact the outcome here. To resolve these disagreements, the Court will conduct a factual hearing, taking any relevant witness testimony and accepting into evidence any admissible records and other documents. Chambers will be in touch shortly as to scheduling. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 5/22/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

May 22, 2026

Text Order

#15

May 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Court will hold a hearing on 6/5/2026 at 10:00am to address the issue raised in ECF 14 . So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 5/28/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 05/28/2026)

May 28, 2026

Text Order

#16

May 29, 2026

Letter

#17

Jun 01, 2026

TEXT ORDER: As the parties are aware, the Respondents have, until recently, taken the position that the Petitioner is lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. See, e.g., ECF 7 . To address certain issues related to that purported Section 1231 authority, the Court last week scheduled a factual hearing that was to go forward on June 5. See ECF 15 . The Respondents have now indicated that, due to a now-caught error, it appears that the Petitioner is no longer being detained under Section 1231, but rather is being detained under Section 1225(b)(2). See ECF 16 . The Respondents' error in failing to accurately state the basis for the Petitioner's detention has put off, for a meaningful period of time, what would have otherwise been an all-but-immediate immigration-court bond hearing. In this circumstance, which is extraordinary, the Petitioner shall be promptly released from the custody of federal immigration authorities. This release order is a bail order. The bail order/release order shall expire of its own accord, without need of further judicial action, after the Petitioner receives an immigration-court bond hearing and the immigration judges issues his or her ruling. The Court will stay the instant bail order/release order until 4:00pm on June 1 to give the Respondents an opportunity to indicate whether (i) the Petitioner has a criminal record, (ii) is otherwise a danger to the public safety, or (iii) is a flight risk. If no filing is received along those lines by 4:00pm today, the Petitioner shall be promptly released consistent with this bail order/release order. If a filing is made by 4:00pm today, the Court will promptly evaluate the filing. In light of the above, the hearing scheduled for June 5 is canceled. It is moot. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/1/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#18

Jun 01, 2026

Letter

#19

Jun 01, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner shall be promptly released from federal immigration custody, consistent with the Court's bail order/release order of this morning. The Respondents shall file a status update on or before noon on June 2, confirming when the release took place. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/1/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

#20

Jun 01, 2026

Letter

Jun 01, 2026

Text Order

#21

Jun 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The relief requested by the Petitioner has been granted. See ECF 17, ECF 19 . Accordingly, it appears that the injunction at ECF 3 should be lifted, and the motion at ECF 2 terminated at moot. If a party has a different view, it should explain why in a brief letter, to be filed on or before June 22 at 3:00pm. If no persuasive letter is received, this case will be promptly closed. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/22/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#22

Jun 22, 2026

Letter

Jun 22, 2026

Text Order

#23

Jun 24, 2026

Letter

#24

Jun 24, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the Petitioner's letter at ECF 23, asking this Court to "temporarily suspend its immigration bond hearing order until the Cout decides on [the Petitioner's] June 22 letter or until [the] Petitioner has had adequate time to prepare for a bond hearing. ECF 23 . But the Court's relevant orders did not direct the Respondents to conduct a bond hearing for the Petitioner on this date. See ECF 17 (stating only that the order for release on bail "shall expire of its own accord... after the Petitioner receives an immigration-court bond hearing"); see also ECF 19 (requesting a general "status update on or before noon on June 2"). And the Petitioner has cited to no authority in support of the assumption that this Court has the authority to direct EOIR (or any other relevant entity) to adjourn hearings scheduled by its immigration judges. The Court does not supervise EOIR. Rather, it its habeas capacity, the Court can consider whether a person is in custody in violation of federal law. But the Petitioner has not carried his burden of showing why today's immigration-court hearing would meet that test. The Court, in its habeas capacity, can also issue orders in aid of its jurisdiction under the All-Writs Act. But same point. The Petitioner has not carried his burden of showing why today's immigration-court hearing must be adjourned to aid this Court's jurisdiction. The request at ECF 23 is, accordingly, denied. The Respondents shall file a status update on or before June 25 at 5:00pm, shedding light on the status of the Petitioner's concerns raised at ECF 22, and alerting the Court to the outcome of any bond hearing that takes place today. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/24/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/24/2026)

Jun 24, 2026

Text Order

#25

Jun 25, 2026

Letter

#26

Jun 26, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the Petitioner's letter at ECF 22, asking the Court to revise it's Text Order at ECF 17 to direct the Petitioner's "release on recognizance, without conditioning that release on a future immigration-court bond hearing." ECF 22 at 1. Assuming arguendo that the Court has habeas jurisdiction to consider this request --- which it may not, considering that the Petitioner is no longer in custody, and the Petitioner has not argued that he is being detained in violation of the laws of the United States, see Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) --- there are no grounds for relief here. The Court's Order at ECF 17 did not "condition[]... release on a future immigration-court bond hearing." Contra ECF 22 at 1. Rather, the Court directed the Petitioner's "prompt[] release," but noted that the "release order shall expire of its own accord" if and when "the Petitioner receives an immigration-court bond hearing and the immigration judge[] issues his or her ruling." ECF 17 . The Court is also in receipt of the Respondents' letter at ECF 25, asking the Court to issue an order "clarify[ing] that... a custody redetermination proceeding is not moot" and directing "that Petitioner should be accorded a custody redetermination hearing." Id. at 2. The Respondents appear to be requesting either a forward-looking opinion as to possible mootness (but federal courts generally cannot offer advisory opinions) or a statement as to what sort of immigration court hearing should take place (but federal courts generally do not have supervisory power over immigration courts). The Respondents' request is therefore denied and they shall file a status update letter on or before July 2 at noon. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/26/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

Jun 26, 2026

Text Order

#27

Jul 01, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#28

Jul 02, 2026

Letter

#29

Jul 03, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents have sought leave to file a status update once the immigration court renders a decision on their motion to reconsider. See ECF 28 . The request is granted. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/3/2026. (ps) (Entered: 07/03/2026)

Jul 03, 2026

Text Order

#30

Jul 15, 2026

Letter

#31

Jul 16, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall provide the Court with a status update once a bond hearing goes forward. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/16/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

Jul 16, 2026

Text Order

#32

Jul 17, 2026

Letter

#33

Jul 20, 2026

TEXT ORDER: A petition was filed, see ECF 1, and the relief sought was obtained. See ECF 17, ECF 32 . Therefore, it appears that the motion at ECF 2 is moot, and the injunction at ECF 3 should be lifted. If any party has a different view, it should explain why in a brief letter, to be filed on or before July 22 at 10:00am. If no persuasive letter is received, this case will be promptly closed. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/20/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

Jul 20, 2026

Text Order

#34

Jul 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The petition at ECF 1 is dismissed, the injunction at ECF 3 is dismissed, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/22/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

Jul 22, 2026

Order of Dismissal