District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-07032

#1

Jun 12, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number NEW54297.), filed by JOSE ERNESTO GUILLEN MELENDEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Exhibits)(pm, ) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

#2

Jun 12, 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 6/12/2026. (pm, ) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

#3

Jun 12, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petition at ECF 1 indicates that the pro se Petitioner was taken into immigration custody on March 29, id. at 5, after previously having been released from custody on bond. See ECF [1-2] at 7, 18. It also indicates that the Petitioner was granted asylum in 2014, affording him "[r]elief" from a 2013 order of removal. See ECF 1 at 3-5. The Petitioner further argues that he was not "represented correctly by the attorney [he previously retained]" in an effort re-open that 2013 order of removal. See id. at 8. To the extent that the Petitioner aims to press a Sixth Amendment violation, the claim is denied because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach to immigration proceedings. See Fadiga v. Attorney Gen., 488 F.3d 142, 157 n.23 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Ponce-Levia v. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d 369, 380-81 (3d Cir. 2003)). Beyond that, the Court construes the pro se Petition as a challenge to the authority for the Petitioner's detention. Accordingly, the Respondents shall file a letter explaining the legal and factual basis for the Petitioner's detention on May 26, and his detention since then. The letter shall be filed on or before June 16 at 4:00pm. And it shall also be provided by the Respondents to the Petitioner, along with this text order, at the time it is filed. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/12/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

Jun 12, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

#4

Jun 15, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by BROOKS E. DOYNE on behalf of DELANEY HALL DETENTION FACILITY (DOYNE, BROOKS) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

#5

Jun 16, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

#6

Jun 18, 2026

TEXT ORDER: For the reasons articulated by the Court in De Aguiar v. Rokosky, 2026 WL 1123571 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2026), 8 U.S.C. § 1231 does not supply a basis for the Petitioner's current detention. A bond hearing shall be conducted before an immigration judge on or before June 19 at 3:00pm, unless, by June 18 at 5:00pm, the Respondents file a letter explaining that the Petitioner has asked to adjourn the bond hearing. The Respondents shall file a status update letter on or before June 22 at 10:00am. The United States Attorney's Office shall immediately file a letter on the Court's public docket if this Order is violated. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/18/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

#7

Jun 18, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Jun 18, 2026

Letter

Jun 18, 2026

Text Order

#9

Jun 22, 2026

Letter

#10

Jun 24, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall file an additional status update on or before June 26. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/24/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/24/2026)

Jun 24, 2026

Text Order

#11

Jun 25, 2026

Letter

#12

Jun 26, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall file an additional status update on July 1. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/26/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

Jun 26, 2026

Text Order

#13

Jul 01, 2026

Letter

#14

Jul 02, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

#15

Jul 03, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Yesterday, the Petitioner filed a second Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See ECF 14 (originally filed in Case No. 2:26-cv-08105). It appears to raise the same claims as the Petition in this instant case, at ECF 1 . If either party disagrees with the Court's initial read on the new petition, and wishes to call the Court's attention to newly raised issues, they must do so on or before July 11. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/3/2026. (ps) (Entered: 07/03/2026)

Jul 03, 2026

Text Order

#16

Jul 10, 2026

Letter

#17

Jul 17, 2026

Letter

#18

Jul 20, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the Petitioner's recent filing at ECF 17, asserting that the Respondents and assigned immigration judge did not accept evidence the Petitioner submitted for his custody redetermination hearing in support of his release on bond. Construing this pro se filing liberally, as the Court must, the Court takes the Petitioner to be arguing that his custody redetermination hearing did not comport with Due Process. See Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 2002). On or before July 21 at 5:00pm, the Respondents shall file a letter responding to the Petitioner's letter at ECF 17 and laying out all relevant facts and governing law. The Respondents shall also attach a copy of the transcript for the Petitioner's custody redetermination hearing. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/20/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 07/20/2026)

Jul 20, 2026

Text Order

#19

Jul 21, 2026

Letter

#20

Jul 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER: In their letter at ECF 19, the Respondents indicate that the "Petitioner uploaded a 163-page filing in advance of [his custody re-determination] hearing" in support of his release on bond, but that "for reasons presently unknown, the Immigration Judge was not aware of the filing at the time of the hearing." ECF 19 at 1. At a minimum, "due process requires 'a meaningful opportunity to be heard' and a 'reasonable opportunity to present evidence.'" Rendon v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 370 F. App'x 262, 265 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Jarbough v. Att'y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 190, 192 (3d Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, the Respondents shall schedule a new bond hearing for the Petitioner to take place on or before noon on July 24. The Respondents shall ensure that all evidence submitted by the Petitioner in support of his release on bond is received by the immigration judge with sufficient time for the immigration judge to review the evidence presented ahead of the scheduled hearing. The Respondents shall file a status update as to the outcome of the Petitioner's new bond hearing on or before July 27 at 10:00am. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/22/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

Jul 22, 2026

Text Order

#21

Jul 27, 2026

Letter

#22

Jul 27, 2026

TEXT ORDER: A petition was filed, see ECF 1, a bond hearing was ordered, see ECF 20, and it was conducted. See ECF 21 . Accordingly, it appears that the petition should be dismissed. Any party objecting to this course of action shall file a short letter on or before July 31 at 5:00pm. If no persuasive letter is filed before the deadline, the petition will be promptly dismissed. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/27/2026. (ps) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

Jul 27, 2026

Text Order

#23

Jul 29, 2026

Letter

#24

Jul 30, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

Jul 30, 2026

Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

Jul 30, 2026

Set Deadlines as to 24 MOTION to Reject Dismissal of the Case. Motion set for 9/8/2026 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. (N/M) (sks)

#25

Aug 01, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Respondents shall file a letter in response to the motion at ECF 24 on or before August 5 at 5:00pm. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 8/1/2026. (ps) (Entered: 08/01/2026)

Aug 01, 2026

Text Order

#26

Aug 05, 2026

Response (NOT Motion)

#27

Aug 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The request for relief at ECF 24 is denied. The Petitioner was ordered removed in absentia in August 2013. See Answer to § 2241 Habeas Petition (ECF 5) at 1; Answer to § 2241 Habeas Petition, Exhibit A (ECF 5-1) at 2. This Court cannot review claims arising from federal immigration officials' decision to take steps to execute that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); Hector G.M. v. Warden Elizabeth Det. Ctr., 2021 WL 5320854, at *2 (3d Cir. Nov. 16, 2021) (noting that Section 1252(g) "contains clear language repealing habeas jurisdiction as a means of challenging the execution of removal orders"). Nor can it re-weigh the immigration judge's conclusion that the Petitioner is a flight risk. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022) (noting that federal courts "lack jurisdiction to review any discretionary determinations underlying [an immigration judge's] bond decision"); Ren v. Tsoukaris, 2026 WL 1602178, at *2 (D.N.J. June 4, 2026) ("Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e), federal courts lack jurisdiction to reweigh an immigration judge's discretionary determinations concerning dangerousness or flight risk."); Modebadze v. Soto, 2026 WL 1067835, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2026) (concluding Section 1226(e) prevented the Court from "second-guess[ing]" the immigration judge's determination that the Petitioner failed to establish that he was not a flight risk). In light of the above, the petition at ECF 1 is dismissed, the injunction at ECF 2 is lifted, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 8/7/2026. (ro, ) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#28

Aug 07, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

Aug 07, 2026

Order of Dismissal