District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-08055

#1

Jul 01, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 54434.), filed by RICHARD ARGENIS ACOSTA TOLENTINO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Application TRO, # 3 Envelope)(in-mk) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#2

Jul 01, 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 7/1/2026. (in-mk) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Jul 01, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

#3

Jul 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Michael E. Farbiarz for all further proceedings. Judge Jamel K. Semper no longer assigned to case. So Ordered by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/2/26. (tjg) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#4

Jul 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner shall not be removed from the state of New Jersey or from the United States. This is an administrative stay, the purpose of which is to briefly freeze the status quo and preserve the Court's jurisdiction should it exist. See Zheng v. Bondi, 2025 WL 280542, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2025). As to the Petitioner, the Court previously ordered that an immigration-court bail hearing take place. See May 5, 2026 Text Order, Acosta Tolentino v. Soto, No. 26-5051 (D.N.J. May 5, 2026) (ECF 5). It did, and the immigration judge determined not to bail the Petitioner. See Respondents' Letter, Acosta Tolentino v. Soto, No. 26-5051 (D.N.J. May 12, 2026) (ECF 9); see also June 16, 2026 Text Order, Acosta Tolentino v. Warden, No. 26-7017 (D.N.J. June 16, 2026) (ECF 5); Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 21, 25, Acosta Tolentino v. Warden, No. 26-8055 (D.N.J. July 1, 2026) (ECF 1). Because the Petitioner has received a bond hearing, it does not appear that he is detained "in violation of... the laws... of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Therefore, it appears that no further relief is warranted. See Kumar v. Soto, 822 F. Supp. 3d 450, 465 n.32 (D.N.J. 2026). In light of all this, the Court is inclined to dismiss the petition. Any party objecting to this course of action shall explain why, in a short letter to be filed on or before July 8 at 5:00pm. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/2/2026. (wh) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

Jul 02, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Jul 02, 2026

Order Reassigning Case

Jul 02, 2026

Text Order

Jul 02, 2026

Case Reassigned to Judge Michael E. Farbiarz. Judge Jamel K. Semper no longer assigned to the case. (tjg, )

#5

Jul 08, 2026

Letter

Jul 08, 2026

QC - Document Not Signed by Attorney

#6

Jul 13, 2026

Exhibit (to Document)

#7

Jul 14, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Petitioner's arguments at ECF 5 are not persuasive for the reasons alluded to at ECF 4 . And there are other reasons the Petitioner's arguments fall short. The Petitioner argues that his bond hearing failed to comport with the requirements of due process because (i) the immigration judge failed to consider less restrictive alternatives to detention and (ii) the burden was on the Petitioner. See ECF 5 at 2-3. But the Petitioner has not put anything in front of the Court --- say, a transcript or other documentary evidence --- that speaks to the purported "fail[ure] to consider less restrictive alternatives." Id. at 2. And the court of appeals has held that "under § 1226(a) the burden remains on the detainee at all times." Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 279 (3d Cir. 2018). The Petitioner also makes a due process argument as to the length of his detention. See ECF 5 at 3-4. But there is "no authority... to suggest that duration alone can sustain a due process challenge by a detainee who has been afforded the process contemplated by § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations." Borbot, 906 F.3d at 277. The petition at ECF 1 is therefore dismissed, the injunction at ECF 4 is lifted, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 7/14/26. (ro, ) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

Jul 14, 2026

Order of Dismissal