District of New Jersey • 2:26-cv-09133

#1

Jul 22, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANJDC-17698172.), filed by MARIA CAMILA SAA ZAMBRANO. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Text of Proposed Order to Show Cause, # 3 Text of Proposed Order to Show Cause)(TAYLOR, LOXANNE) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

#2

Jul 22, 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 7/22/2026. (jml, ) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

Jul 22, 2026

Judge Evelyn Padin added. (jml, )

Jul 22, 2026

Add and Terminate Judges

Jul 22, 2026

Emergent Immigration Habeas Non-transfer Order

#3

Jul 24, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Petitioner Maria Camila Saa Zambrano filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging she is unlawfully detained by immigration authorities under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), D.E. 1 ("Petition"). Along with her Petition, Petitioner also filed a motion for an order to show cause seeking an order enjoining her transfer or removal from outside the District of New Jersey and for her immediate release. D.E. 2 ("Motion to Show Cause"). It is ORDERED that, if Respondents contest Petitioner's factual allegations and/or contend that Petitioner has a criminal record and/or assert this case is distinguishable from the cases in this district previously addressing § 1225, they shall file an expedited answer to the Petition within 24 hours of the date of entry of this Order, and Petitioner may file a reply within 3 days of the date of filing of Respondents' expedited answer. If Respondents do not file expedited answer, under this Court's decision in Lomeu v. Soto, No. 25-16589, 2025 WL 2981296, at *9 (D.N.J. Oct. 23, 2025), and other recent decisions in this District interpreting § 1225, including Rivera Zumba v. Bondi, No. 25-14626, 2025 WL 2753496(D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2025) (interpreting § 1225(b)(2)), Rivas Rodriguez v. Rokosky, No. 25-17419, 2025 WL 3485628 (D.N.J. Dec. 3, 2025) (interpreting § 1225(b)(1)), accepting Petitioner's allegations as true, the Court holds Petitioner's mandatory detention under Section 1225(b) is unlawful and further violates her liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. If Respondents do not file an expedited answer in opposition, they shall instead release Petitioner within 24 hours of this Order and file a written notice of Petitioner's release within three days. If Respondents subsequently detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), they shall comply with the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(8) and (d). The Motion to Show Cause, D.E. 2, is DISMISSED as MOOT because the Court has enjoined Petitioner's transfer from New Jersey and ordered an expedited resolution of this matter. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 7/24/2026. (bt, ) (Entered: 07/24/2026)

#4

Jul 24, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#5

Jul 24, 2026

Response to Habeas Petition

Jul 24, 2026

Text Order

#6

Jul 25, 2026

Letter

#7

Jul 27, 2026

Letter

#8

Jul 29, 2026

TEXT ORDER: This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Maria Camila Saa Zambrano's Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D.E. 1 ("Petition"); Respondents' Expedited Answer, D.E. 5 ("Answer"); and Petitioner's Reply, D.E. 7 ("Reply"). Petitioner alleges that immigration authorities unlawfully detained her under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and contends that she instead should be subject to discretionary detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), including that provision's warrant and individualized-custody procedures. Petition 3, 27-43, 50-73. The record, however, establishes that immigration authorities issued Petitioner an expedited removal order and removed her from the United States on March 28, 2022; Petitioner thereafter reentered the United States without inspection; and, following her July 22, 2026 arrest, the Department of Homeland Security reinstated the March 28, 2022 removal order. D.E. 5-1 at 2-4; D.E. 5-3 at 2; D.E. 5-4 at 2; D.E. 6-1 at 3-4. Respondents also submitted a Warrant of Removal/Deportation dated July 22, 2026. D.E. 5-5 at 2.Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), a prior removal order is reinstated when a noncitizen illegally reenters the United States after having been removed under that order. Section 1231--not §§ 1225 or 1226--governs the detention of a noncitizen subject to a reinstated removal order. Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 527, 536-47 (2021). Petitioner therefore is not entitled to a bond hearing under § 1226(a), and that provision's warrant and individualized-custody requirements do not provide a basis for her release. See id.In her Reply, Petitioner argues that Respondents have not sufficiently established that immigration authorities complied with the reinstatement procedures set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 241.8. Reply at 2-4. The record is sufficient to resolve the present detention challenge. The Form I-871 identifies Petitioner's prior removal order, her removal under that order, and her subsequent unlawful reentry. D.E. 5-3 at 2. The form further reflects that Petitioner elected to make a statement contesting the reinstatement determination and that the deciding officer thereafter reviewed the available evidence and any statements submitted in rebuttal before reinstating the order. Id. Petitioner does not submit a declaration disputing that she is the person subject to the prior order, that she was removed in March 2022, or that she thereafter reentered without inspection. Her challenge to the circumstances under which the March 2022 expedited-removal order was issued does not alter the statutory authority governing her present detention.Petitioner's remaining due-process claims likewise do not warrant habeas relief. The Court agrees that the six-month period discussed in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), is a presumption of reasonableness rather than a categorical bar to an earlier challenge. Accord Munoz-Saucedo v. Pittman, 789 F. Supp. 3d 387, 395 (D.N.J. 2025). But Petitioner, who has been detained only since July 22, 2026, has not provided good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of her removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See id. at 701. The absence of a scheduled flight, anticipated removal date, or completed travel arrangements within days of Petitioner's arrest does not make removal unforeseeable. Nor has Petitioner identified a stay of removal, difficulty obtaining travel documents, a refusal by Colombia to accept her, or any comparable legal or practical impediment to removal. Her pending request for Military Parole in Place and the substantial equities described in the Reply may be relevant to the agency's discretionary consideration of that request, but the request does not itself grant Petitioner an immigration status or benefit, stay her removal, or otherwise demonstrate that removal is not reasonably foreseeable. See D.E. 7-3 at 1.The Court need not determine whether reinstatement commenced a new ninety-day removal period or whether Petitioner is presently detained under § 1231(a)(2) or § 1231(a)(6). Under either provision, § 1231 governs her detention, and the present record does not establish that her continued detention is unlawful. Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED without prejudice. Petitioner may file a new petition under § 2241 if materially changed circumstances later provide a basis to challenge the duration of her detention under § 1231. Petitioner's request to restrain her transfer during the pendency of this action is DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this matter. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 7/29/2026. (bt) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

Jul 29, 2026

Text Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions