District of New Jersey • 1:26-cv-05163

#1

May 07, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17398737.), filed by OTONIEL CABALLERO DUBON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Brief, # 6 Certificate of Service, # 7 Supplement Notice of Appearance, # 8 Supplement Order to Show Cause, # 9 Civil Cover Sheet)(SANTAMARIA, STERLING) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

#2

May 07, 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 5/7/2026. (jml, ) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

May 07, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

May 07, 2026

Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb added. (jml, )

May 07, 2026

Add and Terminate Judges

#3

May 08, 2026

TEXT ORDER Petitioner alleges he is unlawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. 1225 without a bond hearing. Dkt. No. 1, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 ("Petition"). If Respondents contest Petitioner's material factual allegations and/or assert Petitioner has a criminal history and/or contend that Petitioner's detention is distinguishable from the cases in this district previously addressing Section 1225, they shall file an expedited answer within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this Order, and Petitioner may file a reply within three (3) days of the date of filing of Respondents' expedited answer. If Respondents do not file an expedited answer, pursuant to the Court's recent decisions in Rivera Zumba v. Bondi, No. 25-14626 (KSH), 2025 WL 2753496 (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2025) (interpreting Section 1225(b)(2)), Rivas Rodriguez v. Rokosky, No. 25-17419 (CPO), 2025 WL 3485628 (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 2025) (interpreting Section 1225(b)(1)), and other recent decisions in this District interpreting Section 1225, the Court holds that Petitioner is subject to detention under Section 1226(a). Therefore, in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this Text Order, in lieu of an expedited answer, Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge who shall assess whether he presents a flight risk or a danger to the community, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Section 236.1(c)(8), (d)(1). Within three (3) days of that bond hearing, Respondents shall file a written notice of the outcome of that hearing with this Court. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 05/08/2026. (Costigan, Roberta) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

May 08, 2026

Order

#4

May 20, 2026

Motion to Quash/Compel/Enforce

#5

May 21, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

May 21, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

#7

May 26, 2026

Letter

Jun 22, 2026

Order on Motion to Quash

#9

Jun 29, 2026

Letter

#10

Jun 30, 2026

Letter

#11

Jul 06, 2026

Letter

#12

Jul 27, 2026

TEXT ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon the parties' supplemental briefs addressing Petitioner's contention that, pursuant to under 8 C.F.R. 241.4(l)(2), immigration authorities failed to provide notice and reasons for Petitioner's re-detention following his release from immigration authorities under an Order of Supervision on May 18, 2024. Dkt. Nos. 9, 10 ("Respondents' Supplemental Brief"); Dkt. No. 11 ("Petitioner's Supplemental Brief"). Respondents argue § 1252(g) eliminates subject-matter jurisdiction over habeas challenges (including those raising constitutional claims) to an arrest or detention for the purpose of executing a final removal order. See Tazu v. Atty. Gen., 975 F.3d 292, 297 (3d Cir. 2020) ("The plain text of § 1252(g) covers decisions about whether and when to execute a removal order.") Dkt. No. 9, Respondents' Supplemental Brief at 3. If the Court finds jurisdiction, Respondents submit the appropriate remedy is not release; it is to direct compliance with the regulation. (Id. at 2.) On June 29, 2026, ICE revoked Petitioner's Order of Supervision because Petitioner violated the terms of the Alternatives to Detention program by not reporting as instructed. Dkt. No. 10 Respondent's Supplemental Brief at 1; Dkt. No. 10-1, Ex. 1 ("Revocation of Release Documents"). ICE also conducted an initial informal interview and allowed Petitioner the opportunity to respond to the reasons for revocation. Revocation of Release Documents at 3. Petitioner distinguishes this matter from Tazu because, unlike Tazu, Respondents have not asserted that they have the documents necessary to remove Petitioner expeditiously. Petitioner's Supplemental Brief at 1. With respect to ICE's belated notice of revocation of release, Petitioner contends the Court should not accept a post-hoc rationalization for his detention because he was initially detained in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights. Id. at 2. The Court agrees with Respondents that the appropriate remedy for re-detention without notice and opportunity to be heard under 8 C.F.R. 241.1(l) is compliance with the regulation. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 813 (2008) ("habeas is, as the majority acknowledges, a flexible remedy rather than a substantive right.") Therefore, even assuming Tazu is distinguishable because Petitioner is not subject to removal in the near future, the Court will DENY the Petition without prejudice because Petitioner is now lawfully detained pending his removal proceedings. The Clerk shall CLOSE this matter. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 07/27/2026. (Costigan, Roberta) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

Jul 27, 2026

Terminate Civil Case

Jul 27, 2026

Order