District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-06332

#1

May 29, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17481228.), filed by KENDRY DE JESUS RONDON SANCHEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Civil Cover Sheet, # 9 Brief, # 10 Certificate of Service, # 11 Supplement Notice of Appearance, # 12 Supplement Order to Show Cause)(SANTAMARIA, STERLING) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#2

May 29, 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 5/29/2026. (jml, ) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

May 29, 2026

Judge Katharine S. Hayden added. (jml, )

May 29, 2026

Add and Terminate Judges

May 29, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

#3

Jun 10, 2026

Order to Answer

#4

Jun 12, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#5

Jun 16, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

#6

Sep 11, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Kendry de Jesus Rondon Sanchez's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1, "Petition") in which Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody. The Petition is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner is a native of the Dominican Republic and a citizen of Spain who entered the United States on or about September 9, 2023, via the Visa Waiver Program ("VWP") and stayed beyond the authorized period of time. Petitioner asserts that his detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), following previous case law from this Court which held that § 1226(a) governed those who entered via the VWP and are detained pending a decision on their removal. See e.g., Molina v. Soto, No. 25-16880, 2025 WL 3281820, at *2 (D.N.J. Nov. 25, 2025); Gjergj G. v. Edwards, No. 19-5059, 2019 WL 1254561, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2019); Szentkiralyi v. Ahrendt, No. 17-1889, 2017 WL 3477739, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 14, 2017). Respondents assert that Petitioner is mandatorily detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1187 or, in the alternative, 8 U.S.C. § 1231. Respondents submitted copies of the Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order (ECF No. 5-1 at 1) and the signed Final Administrative Removal Order (ECF No. 5-2), issued on May 12, 2026. Respondents assert that Petitioner did not request asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture at the time his removal order was issued. While Petitioner alleged in the Petition that he had applied for asylum with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") in 2025, he has provided no evidence of that application or any update on the application's status. Therefore, Petitioner's removal order is considered final, and he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231. See Gjergj, 2019 WL 1254561, at *2 ("[A] final order denying those three forms of relief is considered a final removal order for VWP entrants, and they may be removed without further process once such an administratively final order is issued."); Pomaquiza Loja v. Brophy, 2026 WL 1543181, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2026) ("Because the Final Administrative Removal Order in this case was issued on the same day [Petitioner] was arrested... he has been detained under section 1231 since then. And because the removal period has not yet expired,... he is not entitled to release or a hearing."). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, detention of a noncitizen is mandatory for the 90-day "removal period" and detention may be extended as necessary to effectuate removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (finding a presumptive limit to reasonable duration of post-removal-period detention of six months). Petitioner has been in detention since on or about May 12, 2026--still within the presumptively reasonable period. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Petitioner has also neither alleged nor provided evidence that his removal is not reasonably likely in the foreseeable future. See id. at 680 ("After the 6-month period, once an alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must furnish evidence sufficient to rebut that showing."). Therefore, Petitioner's request for a writ of habeas corpus is premature for a due process challenge. For these reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be DENIED without prejudice. The Order enjoining Respondents from transferring Petitioner is LIFTED. It is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this matter. So Ordered by Judge Katharine S. Hayden on 9/11/26. (cm, ) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

Sep 11, 2026

Order

Sep 11, 2026

Terminate Civil Case