Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
W.L.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 26-10179 (JXN)
LUIS SOTO, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NEALS, District Judge
Before the Court is Petitioner W.L.G.’s (“Petitioner”) motion for reconsideration (ECF No.
10) of the Court’s August 19, 2026, Order granting Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(“Petition”). Respondents opposed the motion (ECF No. 12), and Petitioner replied in further
support (ECF No. 13).
Petitioner, a native of Peru, entered the United States in or around 2022. (ECF No. 1 at 1.)
On March 2, 2026, Petitioner was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)
officers. (Id.) On August 11, 2026, Petitioner filed his Petition, arguing that he was unlawfully
detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). (See generally id.) Petitioner also argued that his detention
was unlawful because he was arrested without a warrant. (Id.) Following an order from the Court,
Respondents filed a response submitting that Petitioner was detained under § 1225(b)(2). (ECF
No. 7 at 2.) Respondents also informed the Court that on December 22, 2025, Petitioner was
arrested for (1) violating an order of protection and (2) aggravated harassment, involving
communication of threats by phone, computer, or email. (Id. at 1.) Petitioner pled guilty to an
Case 2:26-cv-10179-JXN Document 14 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID: <pageID>

2
amended charge of disorderly conduct: creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition.
(Id.) Additionally, on January 5, 2026, Petitioner was arrested for disobeying a court order. (Id.)
On August 19, 2026, the Court issued an Order finding that the facts asserted in the Petition
establish that Petitioner cannot be mandatorily detained under the plain text of § 1225(b)(1) or
(b)(2), because Petitioner has resided in the country and was detained years later in the interior of
the country. (ECF No. 8 at 2.) The Court granted Petitioner’s Petition and ordered Respondents to
treat Petitioner as detained under 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (Id. at 3.) The Court ordered Respondents
to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a)
before an immigration judge who shall assess whether Petitioner presents a flight risk or a danger
to the community. (Id.) On August 26, 2026, Petitioner appeared for a bond hearing before an
immigration judge, who denied bond based on a finding that Petitioner is a danger to the
community and a flight risk. (See ECF No. 9.)
On August 28, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 10-
1.) Petitioner asks the Court to reconsider the remedy provided in the Court’s August 19, 2026
Order. (Id. at 4-6.) Petitioner argues that because Respondents unlawfully detained Petitioner
under § 1225(b)(2), immediate release, not a §1226(a) bond hearing, is the appropriate remedy.
(Id.) Petitioner further argues that the Court should have ordered his release rather than convert his
detention to detention under § 1226(a). (Id.) Petitioner also argues that the Court “overlooked” his
argument that he was arrested without a warrant in violation of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (“INA”). (Id. at 6.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion for reconsideration to alter or amend
a judgment should be granted only where the moving party shows: “(1) an intervening change in
the controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court
Case 2:26-cv-10179-JXN Document 14 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID: <pageID>

3
[made its initial decision] or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice.” United States ex rel. Schumann v. AstraZeneca Pharms. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848–49 (3d
Cir. 2014) (citation modified and omitted). Reconsideration “should be granted sparingly” because
“federal courts have a strong interest in the finality of judgments.” Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Diversified
Indus., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D. Pa. 1995). A losing party cannot use such a motion to
“relitigate old matters, raise argument, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the
entry of judgment.” Boretsky v. Governor of N.J., 433 F. App'x 73, 78 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting
Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009)).
Petitioner argues that the Court should reconsider the Court’s prior Order granting
Petitioner’s Petition and ordering a bond hearing, rather than release. (ECF No. 10-1 at 4-6.)
Petitioner submits that the Court has previously ordered release, not a bond hearing, when the
Government unlawfully detained a petitioner under § 1225(b). (Id. at 4, citing Tovar v. Soto, No.
26-3441, 2026 WL 1005096, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2026).) The Court acknowledges that in many
cases it has ordered a petitioner’s release from custody when it finds the petitioner was unlawfully
detained under § 1225(b). However, habeas relief is an “adaptable remedy” that depends on the
circumstances of the case at bar. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 779 (2008). Here, in light
of Petitioner’s criminal history, the Court found that ordering Respondents to treat Petitioner as
detained under § 1226(a) and ordering a bond hearing was the appropriate remedy. 	See id.
(recognizing that habeas corpus is “an adaptable remedy” that depends on the circumstances, and
that “release need not be the exclusive remedy and is not the appropriate one in every case in which
the writ is granted.”) The Court considered the facts presented here and found that a bond hearing
was the appropriate habeas remedy.
Case 2:26-cv-10179-JXN Document 14 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID: <pageID>

4
Petitioner also argues that rather than order a hearing where Petitioner bore the burden of
proof to justify release, the Court should have ordered a bond hearing where the Government bore
the burden to justify Petitioner’s continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. (ECF No.
10-1 at 6.) Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the Government is authorized to detain, conditionally parole,
or release an alien subject to removal proceedings prior to the issuance of a final order of removal.
See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 288-89 (2018). Section 1226 and its implementing
regulations require the Department to “provide detainees with a ‘prompt bond hearing.’” Zheng v.
Rokosky, 826 F. Supp. 3d 545, 554 (D.N.J. 2026) (quoting Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr.
Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 2018)). At a bond hearing under the statute, the noncitizen
bears the burden of proving that they are neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk.
Borbot, 906 F.3d at 279. Accordingly, the Court ordered a bond hearing where Petitioner bore the
burden of proof.
Finally, Petitioner argues that the Court did not consider his argument that he is entitled to
release from custody because he was arrested and detained without a warrant, and the INA requires
a warrant to arrest an individual under § 1226(a). (ECF No. 10-1 at 6.) However, Respondents
initially detained Petitioner under § 1225(b). The Court ordered Respondents to treat Petitioner as
detained under § 1226(a). Accordingly, Petitioner is now lawfully detained under §1226(a).
Petitioner has not demonstrated an intervening change in controlling law, newly available
evidence, clear error of law or fact, or manifest injustice warranting reconsideration of the Court’s
August 19, 2026 Order. See Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669,
677 (3d Cir. 1999). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS on this 16th day of October 2026,
Case 2:26-cv-10179-JXN Document 14 Filed 10/16/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID: <pageID>

5
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall REOPEN this matter for the purpose of
entering this Memorandum and Order; it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 10) is DENIED; and it
is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order
upon the parties electronically and CLOSE the case.
________________________
JULIEN XAVIER NEALS
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-10179-JXN Document 14 Filed 10/16/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID: <pageID>