District of New Jersey • 2:25-cv-16882

#1

Oct 28, 2025

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Oct 28, 2025

Remark (public)

Oct 28, 2025

Remark Petitioner's address was not included with the initiating documents received by the Clerk's Office on 10/24/2025. (sks)

#2

Oct 29, 2025

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall file a response to the habeas petition on or before October 31 at 11:00am. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 10/29/2025. (ro, ) (Entered: 10/29/2025)

Oct 29, 2025

Order

#3

Oct 31, 2025

Response to Habeas Petition

#4

Nov 03, 2025

Opinion AND Order

#5

Nov 03, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#6

Nov 03, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#7

Nov 03, 2025

Letter

#8

Nov 04, 2025

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#9

Nov 05, 2025

Letter

#10

Nov 06, 2025

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall file a response to the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at ECF 8 on or before November 12 at 9:00am. Their response should indicate, among other things, whether transfer of the petition to the Western District of Louisiana is lawful and appropriate, in light of the fact that a portion of the allegations of wrongdoing raised in the Amended Petition appear to relate to events that have taken place in Louisiana. The Petitioner shall then file a reply by November 14 at noon. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 11/6/2025. (ro, ) (Entered: 11/06/2025)

Nov 06, 2025

Order

#11

Nov 07, 2025

Appear Pro Hac Vice

#12

Nov 07, 2025

Appear Pro Hac Vice

Nov 10, 2025

Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

Nov 10, 2025

Set Deadlines as to 12 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Melinda K. Johnson, 11 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Emilie B. Cooper. Motion set for 12/1/2025 before Judge Michael E. Farbiarz. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (sm)

#13

Nov 11, 2025

Response to Habeas Petition

#14

Nov 14, 2025

Reply to Response (NOT Motion)

#15

Nov 21, 2025

Mail Returned

#16

Nov 25, 2025

TEXT ORDER: In his Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Petitioner presses a series of allegations as to (1) his treatment at the detention center in Louisiana where he is being held, and (2) his bond hearing in Louisiana on November 4. See ECF 8 40, 49-50, 52-57. He alleges, for example, that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity to prepare for the referenced bond hearing, see id. at 54, and that he was not given a competent foreign-language interpreter for the hearing. See id. at 55. The Court's understanding had been that the Petitioner pressed these allegations to suggest that he should be released from custody, in part because of them. But the Petitioner's most recent brief in further support of his amended petition seems to suggest the opposite. See ECF 14 at 2 (indicating that although the Petitioner's "conditions of confinement and bond hearing are described in the Amended Petition, [the Petitioner] does not assert a conditions-of-confinement claim or a claim that what occurred at his bond hearing was constitutionally deficient. Rather, the Amended Petition challenges the (lack of) process leading up to [the Petitioner's] detention in New Jersey and his transfer from the District as a form of retaliation for his Original Petition."). In light of this, the Court will proceed on the basis that the Petitioner has withdrawn any contention that he is entitled to release from custody based in whole or in part on (1) his treatment at the Louisiana detention center, or (2) the way his bond hearing was conducted and the time he was afforded to prepare for it. If this is not an accurate understanding, the Petitioner shall so indicate by filing a very brief letter on or before 2:00pm on November 25. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 11/25/2025. (ro, ) (Entered: 11/25/2025)

#17

Nov 25, 2025

Letter

Nov 25, 2025

Order

#18

Dec 03, 2025

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice

#19

Dec 03, 2025

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice

#20

Dec 03, 2025

Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF

#21

Dec 04, 2025

Notice of Pro Hac Vice to Receive NEF

Dec 05, 2025

Pro Hac Vice counsel, MELINDA K. JOHNSON for MODOU MBOUP, has been added to receive Notices of Electronic Filing. Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 101.1, only local counsel are entitled to sign and file papers, enter appearances and receive payments on judgments, decrees or orders. (pm, )

Dec 05, 2025

Notice of Pro Hac Vice counsel added

Dec 05, 2025

Pro Hac Vice counsel, EMILIE B. COOPER for MODOU MBOUP, has been added to receive Notices of Electronic Filing. Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 101.1, only local counsel are entitled to sign and file papers, enter appearances and receive payments on judgments, decrees or orders. (ld)

#22

Dec 12, 2025

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner contends that he is entitled to be released from immigration custody because he was detained without an individualized, pre-detention assessment, and that the lack of individualized assessment violates his due process rights, runs afoul of the INA, and violates his Fourth Amendment rights. He also contends that the only remedy for these violations is immediate release from custody; that the bond hearing he received on X does cannot cure any such violations. The Petitioner shall file a legal brief on or before December 17 at 3:00pm setting forth an affirmative legal basis for each of the above arguments. The Respondents shall reply on or before December 23 at 3:00pm. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 12/12/2025. (ro, ) (Entered: 12/12/2025)

Dec 12, 2025

Order

#23

Dec 17, 2025

Response (NOT Motion)

#24

Dec 17, 2025

Appear Pro Hac Vice

#25

Dec 18, 2025

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Dec 18, 2025

Set Deadlines as to 24 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Motion set for 1/20/2026 before Judge Michael E. Farbiarz. Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be decided on the papers and no appearances are required. Note that this is an automatically generated message from the Clerk`s Office and does not supersede any previous or subsequent orders from the Court. (adc, )

Dec 18, 2025

Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#26

Dec 23, 2025

Letter

#27

Dec 24, 2025

Letter

#28

Dec 31, 2025

Letter

#29

Jan 23, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Whether, after the Court of Appeals' decision in Khalil v. President, United States of America, 2026 WL 111933 (3d Cir. Jan. 15, 2026), the Court has habeas jurisdiction in a certain class of cases is an issue now being briefed in another case. See Aygun v. Soto, 2026 WL 136151, at *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 16, 2026). On or before January 26 at 11:59pm, the Respondents shall indicate whether its habeas jurisdiction arguments in Aygun v. Soto are different in any meaningful way from any habeas jurisdiction arguments that might be relevant in this case. The Petitioner shall file a letter brief on or before January 30 at noon indicating whether, after the Court of Appeals' Khalil decision, the Court has habeas jurisdiction in this case. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 1/23/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

Jan 23, 2026

Text Order

#30

Jan 26, 2026

Letter

#31

Jan 30, 2026

Letter

#32

Jan 30, 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 Aygun v. Soto (2:25-cv-18540-MEF) at 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 1/30/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

Jan 30, 2026

Text Order

#33

Feb 02, 2026

Letter

#34

Mar 16, 2026

Letter

#35

Mar 31, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner's request for further relief is denied, largely for the reason stated by the Respondents at ECF 26 . For habeas purposes, the illegality of the Petitioner's detention was addressed by the provision to him of a hearing. Cf. Kumar v. Soto, 2026 WL 585187, at *12 n.31 (D.N.J. Mar. 2, 2026). With the hearing, his detention ceased being in violation of the laws of the United States --- and so there is no basis under the habeas statute for a (further) remedy. Whether the Petitioner might have non-habeas remedies for the period before the illegality of his detention was purged by a hearing --- that is not before the Court. And note: the Petitioner has not contended that the immigration-court hearing he received did not meet the "fundamental fairness" standards of Due Process. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 3/31/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

Mar 31, 2026

Text Order

#36

Apr 27, 2026

Reconsideration

#37

Apr 27, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall reply to the Petitioner's letter at ECF 36 on or before April 30 at 2:00pm. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 4/27/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

Apr 27, 2026

Text Order

#38

Apr 30, 2026

Letter

#39

Jun 15, 2026

Letter

#40

Jun 18, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner has asked the Court to reconsider its' March 31 Text Order denying relief further relief beyond the bond hearing ordered in November 2025. See ECF 36 . This request is based primarily on two arguments. First, that the Petitioner did not receive due process in his immigration court proceedings because the BIA affirmed his denial of bond on jurisdictional grounds only. See ECF 36-1 at 2 (arguing that the BIA "affirm[ed] the Immigration Judge's determination that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the respondent's bond request" but "ended its analysis there, refusing to address the immigration judge's findings in the alternative" that the Petitioner was a flight risk). And second, that the manner in which the Respondents re-detained him, after he was previously released on recognizance, violates his Due Process rights and the Administrative Procedure Act. See id.; see also ECF 8 at 25-28, 30-31. Courts across the country have concluded that some individualized assessment (as to dangerousness, risk of flight, and/or changed circumstances) is generally required in connection with the undoing of a non-citizen's previously-ordered release on parole. See, e.g., Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 494-95 (S.D.N.Y. 2025); Tumba v. Francis, 813 F. Supp. 3d 394, 403-05 (S.D.N.Y. 2025); Munoz Materano v. Arteta, 804 F. Supp. 3d 395, 419 (S.D.N.Y 2025); see also Restrepo v. Jamison, 2026 WL 141803, at *7-8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2026); cf. also 06/05/2026 Text Order (ECF 28), Nunez-Florez v. Soto, Case No. 2:26-cv-02752 (D.N.J. June 5, 2026). But here, "nothing in the record reflects... (1) who made the decision to detain [the Petitioner], (2) when that decision occurred, (3) on what basis the decision to detain him was made, [or] (4) whether there was any material change in circumstances with respect to [the Petitioner] that triggered his detention. Lopez Benitez, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 494. And in the absence of such information, it is not clear that the Petitioner's re-detention is consistent with relevant regulations (as Acccardi and the Administrative Procedure Act generally require), or the United States Constitution (as interpreted in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)). Accordingly, on or before June 19, the Respondents shall file a letter that lays out all of the relevant factual information in (1)-(4), as enumerated above, and which fully explains their legal position. The Petitioner shall respond on or before June 23. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/18/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

Jun 18, 2026

Text Order

#41

Jun 22, 2026

Letter

#42

Jun 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER: In the Court's text order at ECF 40, the Respondents were directed to file a letter on or before June 19 "that lays out all of the relevant factual information" as to "(1) who made the decision to detain [the Petitioner], (2) when that decision occurred, (3) on what basis the decision to detain him was made, [or] (4) whether there was any material change in circumstances with respect to [the Petitioner] that triggered his detention." Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 494-95 (S.D.N.Y. 2025). But the Respondents did not do so. See ECF 41 . If the Respondents do not file a compelling letter to this effect before 10:00am tomorrow (June 23, 2026), the Petitioner will be promptly released. Cf. 06/05/2026 Text Order, Nunez-Florez v. Soto, Case No. 2:26-cv-2752 (D.N.J. June 5, 2026) ("[B]ecause the Respondents have not shown that the Petitioner has been afforded an individualized determination, the Petitioner's detention is in violation of the laws of the United States, and he shall be promptly released from immigration custody."). So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/22/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#43

Jun 22, 2026

Substitution of Attorney

Jun 22, 2026

Text Order

#44

Jun 23, 2026

Letter

#45

Jun 23, 2026

Letter

#46

Jun 23, 2026

TEXT ORDER: When the Petitioner first entered the United States in 2023, he was briefly detained before being released on his own recognizance "[i]n accordance with section 236" of the INA. Exhibit D to Respondents' Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Order of Release") (ECF 3-1); see also Respondents Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 3) at 5. As noted in the Court's Text Order at ECF 40, Courts across the country have concluded that some individualized assessment (as to dangerousness, risk of flight, and/or changed circumstances) is generally required in connection with the undoing of a non-citizen's previously-ordered release on parole. See, e.g., Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 494-95 (S.D.N.Y. 2025); Tumba v. Francis, 813 F. Supp. 3d 394, 403-05 (S.D.N.Y. 2025); Munoz Materano v. Arteta, 804 F. Supp. 3d 395, 419 (S.D.N.Y 2025); see also Restrepo v. Jamison, 2026 WL 141803, at *7-8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2026); cf. also 06/05/2026 Text Order (ECF 28), Nunez-Florez v. Soto, Case No. 2:26-cv-02752 (D.N.J. June 5, 2026). But here, there is effectively "nothing in the record [that] reflects... (1) who made the decision to detain [the Petitioner], (2) when that decision occurred, (3) on what basis the decision to detain him was made, [or] (4) whether there was any material change in circumstances with respect to [the Petitioner] that triggered his detention. Lopez Benitez, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 494. And the letter filed by the Respondents at ECF 44 does not change the picture. In it, the Respondents represent that "the best available evidence of the [relevant] factual information" is the Petitioner's Form I-213 record, see id., which notes only that on the day of the Petitioner's arrest, a "consensual search operation" was conducted on Canal Street in New York, and that the Petitioner was one of nine individuals who were transported to Newark for processing. See ECF [44-1] at 2. Because the Respondents have not shown that the Petitioner has been afforded an individualized determination, the Petitioner's detention is in violation of the laws of the United States, and he shall be promptly released from immigration custody. Cf. 06/05/2026 Text Order, Nunez-Florez v. Soto, Case No. 2:26-cv-2752 (D.N.J. June 5, 2026). The Respondents shall file a status update letter on or before June 24 at noon. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/23/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/23/2026)

Jun 23, 2026

Text Order

#47

Jun 24, 2026

Letter

#48

Jun 24, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the Respondents letter confirming that the relief ordered at ECF 46 has been provided. Accordingly, it appears that the motion at ECF 36 should be terminated, and this case should be closed. See Chiquito Barzola v. Warden, No. 25-17326, slip op. at 2-3 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2025). If any party has a different view, it should explain why in a brief letter, to be filed on or before June 26 at 10:00am. If no persuasive letter is received, the case will be promptly closed. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/22/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/24/2026)

Jun 24, 2026

Text Order

#49

Jun 25, 2026

Letter

#50

Jul 28, 2026

Order of Dismissal

Jul 28, 2026

Add and Terminate Judges