Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARIA TORRES-CASTILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 26-12566 (JXN)
RANDI BORGEN, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NEALS, District Judge
Before the Court is Petitioner Maria Torres-Castillo’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing she is unlawfully detained under
8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) based on her warrantless arrest. (Habeas Pet., ECF No. 1.) On September 29,
2026, Respondents (“Government”) filed a letter submitting that Petitioner is lawfully detained
under § 1226(a) and informing the Court of Petitioner’s criminal history. (Gov’t Opp’n, ECF No.
4.)
Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States on an unknown date and time. (See
Habeas Pet.; Gov’t Opp’n.) On September 21, 2026, Immigration Customs and Enforcement
(“ICE”) officers detained Petitioner. (Habeas Pet. at 5.) Two days later, Petitioner filed this Petition
arguing she is unlawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) because she was not provided with a
warrant for her arrest. (See generally id.) The Government filed an expedited response submitting
Petitioner is lawfully detained under § 1226(a), has a criminal history, and is scheduled for a bond
hearing. (Gov’t Opp’n.)
Case 2:26-cv-12566-JXN Document 5 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID: <pageID>

2
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), habeas relief may be extended to a prisoner only when he
“is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” A federal
court has jurisdiction over such a petition if the petitioner is “in custody” and the custody is
allegedly “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Id.; Maleng v.
Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). A district court’s authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas
challenges to immigration-related detention. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).
Petitioner has the burden of showing he or she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or
federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 286 (1941).
Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a), which authorizes the Government 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); see also Zheng
v. Rokosky, 826 F. Supp. 3d 545, 554 (D.N.J. 2026) (“Respondents unquestionably possess the
authority to detain non-citizens during removal proceedings when Congress has authorized them
to do so under § 1226(a).”); Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 523 (2003) (“Deportation proceedings
would be vain if those accused could not be held in custody pending the inquiry into their true
character.” (cleaned up)). Creating “statutory rights associated with a given immigration status
falls exclusively within the purview of Congress.” Osorio-Martinez v. Att’y Gen. U.S., 893 F.3d
153, 172 (3d Cir. 2018). § 1226 and its implementing regulations require the Department to
“provide detainees with a ‘prompt bond hearing.’” Zheng, 826 F. Supp. 3d at 554 (quoting Borbot
v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 2018)). As such, where the
Government chooses to detain a non-citizen, the non-citizen may request a bond hearing before an
immigration judge (“IJ”), and to appeal the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”). See, e.g., Borbot, 906 F.3d at 278–79; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1) (non-citizens
Case 2:26-cv-12566-JXN Document 5 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID: <pageID>

3
detained under § 1226(a) “may, at any time before [a removal order] becomes final” request a
bond hearing before an IJ). At the bond hearing, the non-citizen has the burden of proving he or
she is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. Borbot, 906 F.3d at 279.
Petitioner requests release from custody or a bond hearing. But she is lawfully detained
under § 1226(a) and scheduled to receive a bond hearing. Zheng, 826 F. Supp. 3d at 554. Because
Petitioner is receiving both the process owed to a non-citizen detained under § 1226(a), and the
relief sought in her Petition, the Court will deny the Petition.
Accordingly,
IT IS, on this 16th day of October 2026,
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without prejudice; 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-12566-JXN Document 5 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID: <pageID>