Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOSE MORALOES BONILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No. 26-12814 (JXN)
LUIS SOTO, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NEALS, District Judge
Before the Court is Petitioner Jose Moraloes Bonilla’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing he is unlawfully detained
following a warrantless arrest without a bond hearing in violation of his constitutional rights. (See
Habeas Pet., ECF No. 1.) On October 2, 2026, Respondents (“Government”) filed a letter
submitting that Petitioner is lawfully detained under § 1226(a), was scheduled for a bond hearing,
and subsequently withdrew his request for bond. (Gov’t Opp’n, ECF No. 4.)
Petitioner, an El Salvadoran citizen, entered the United States in 2019. (Habeas Pet. at 11.)
On September 17, 2026, Immigration Customs and Enforcement (“ICE”) officers detained
Petitioner. (Id.) On September 29, 2026, Petitioner filed this Petition arguing he is unlawfully
detained without an individualized bond hearing. (See generally id.) The Government filed an
expedited response submitting that Petitioner is lawfully detained under § 1226(a) and withdrew
his request for a bond hearing. (See Gov’t Opp’n.)
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
Case 2:26-cv-12814-JXN Document 5 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID: <pageID>

2
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 to show he 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 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which authorizes the Government to detain,
conditionally parole, or release a non-citizen pending their 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 Government 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 an non-citizen, the non-citizen
may request a bond hearing before an 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; 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1) (non-citizens
detained under § 1226(a) “may, at any time before [a removal order] becomes final” request a bond
hearing before an IJ). At a bond hearing, the non-citizen has the burden of proving he is neither a
danger to the community nor a flight risk. Borbot, 906 F.3d at 279.
Case 2:26-cv-12814-JXN Document 5 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID: <pageID>

3
The Government submits that Petitioner has withdrawn his request for a bond hearing.
“Immigration detainees seeking to invoke this Court’s habeas jurisdiction . . . must exhaust all
administrative remedies before they may seek habeas relief in federal court.” Jelani B. v. Anderson,
No. 20-6459, 2020 WL 5560161, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 17, 2020) (citing Duvall v. Elwood, 336 F.3d
228, 233–34 (3d Cir. 2003)). Even when a non-citizen attempts to prevent removal proceedings
“from taking place in the first instance and is thus not, strictly speaking, attacking a final order of
[removal] . . . , it is well settled that judicial review is precluded if the [non-citizen] has failed to
avail himself of all administrative remedies.” Duvall, 336 F.3d at 233 (quoting Massieu v. Reno,
91 F.3d 416, 421 (3d Cir. 1996)).
A petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claim before the immigration court is generally “fatal
to the District Court’s jurisdiction over [a] habeas petition.” Id. “[E]xhaustion is not required when
the petitioner demonstrates that it is futile.”1 Gambino v. Morris, 134 F.3d 156, 171 (3d Cir. 1998)
(Roth, J., concurring). But failure to exhaust will not be excused when it is a choice. See Hayes v.
Ortiz, No. 20-5268, 2020 WL 3425291, at *5 (D.N.J. June 23, 2020) (“By choosing to skip the
administrative process, Petitioner has delayed any relief that was available to him.”). Here,
Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his request for a bond hearing. So, the Court lacks jurisdiction over
the Petition, which is dismissed without prejudice.
Next, Petitioner argues ICE arrested him without a warrant. (Habeas Pet. at 30–31.) The
Government has provided the Court with an arrest warrant dated September 18, 2026, the day after
Petitioner’s arrest. (ECF No. 4-5.) As the warrant was issued, at the latest, the day after Petitioner
was detained, the Court finds Petitioner’s claim is now irrelevant. “Following the signing of the
1 Some courts in this Circuit have excused exhaustion in cases where the Government incorrectly detained a non-
citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). See, e.g., Zheng v. Rokosky, 826 F. Supp. 3d 545, 553 (D.N.J. 2026). Not so here.
In this case, the Government detained Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
Case 2:26-cv-12814-JXN Document 5 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID: <pageID>

4
warrant for arrest, Petitioner’s detention has been pursuant to the warrant, and he is currently in
custody pursuant to § 1226(a).” Cocha Cocha v. Tsoukaris, No. 26-9857, 2026 WL 2806733, at
*2 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2026); see also Romero Cuero v. Mullin, No. 26-12399, 2026 WL 2996333,
at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2022) (finding warrantless arrest claim irrelevant when a warrant was issued
and Petitioner was currently detained under § 1226(a)); Par v. Jamison, No. 26-3504, 2026 WL
1603299 at * 3-4 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2026) (denying petitioner’s challenge to a warrantless arrest
due to petitioner’s subsequent lawful detention); Fernando C.C. v. Bondi, No. 26-1235, 2026 WL
446408 at * 5 (D. Minn. Feb. 17, 2026) (finding because a warrant issued within hours of
petitioner’s arrest “authorized [petitioner’s] continued detention pursuant to the discretionary
detention framework of Section 1226(a)”).
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-12814-JXN Document 5 Filed 10/16/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID: <pageID>