Opinion — Arafat Joshua Valerio-Enamorado v. Luis Soto, et al., No. 26-6228 (D.N.J.)

Summary

An Opinion filed June 9, 2026 as Document 7 in Arafat Joshua Valerio-Enamorado, Petitioner, v. Luis Soto, et al., Respondents, Civil Action No. 26-6228 (SDW), in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. It addresses a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a petitioner detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") in the Delaney Hall Detention Facility. Respondents argue that the petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and is not entitled to a bond hearing. The Court concludes the petitioner should have been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which requires an opportunity to seek bond, and states that it will grant the Petition and order Respondents to provide a bond hearing. The signature block names Hon. Susan D. Wigenton.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Opinion — Arafat Joshua Valerio-Enamorado v. Luis Soto, et al., No. 26-6228 (D.N.J.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-2-26-cv-06228-dkt-7-d-n-j-aa760ad1fd/, SHA-256 7727b654125b702a7a38a8550c6fb072e0ec5414ae88607dfeba8d7a2e772278.

Full text

Case 2:26-cv-06228-SDW Document 7 Filed 06/09/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 71

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ARAFAT JOSHUA VALERIO- Civil Action No. 26-6228 (SDW)
ENAMORADO,

Petitioner,
OPINION
v.

LUIS SOTO, et al.,

Respondents.

IT APPEARING THAT:

1. Presently before this Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (“Petition”) by Petitioner Arafat Joshua Valerio-Enamorado, who is presently detained by

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in the Delaney Hall Detention Facility, New

Jersey. (ECF No. 1).

2. Petitioner is a citizen of Honduras, who entered the United States in 2013 without

admission or parole. (ECF No. 4-1 at 2-3).

3. He was arrested in Pennsylvania in December 2025 and later transferred into ICE’s

custody. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 26).

4. ICE issued a Notice to Appear on December 17, 2025 alleging Petitioner was a

noncitizen who was present in the United States without authorization and began removal

proceedings. (ECF No. 4-3).

5. The Petition followed on May 28, 2026. (ECF No. 1).

6. Respondents filed an answer on June 1, 2026 arguing that Petitioner is properly

detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because he is a noncitizen “who entered without

admission or parole after inspection and was detained by immigration authorities in the interior of
Case 2:26-cv-06228-SDW Document 7 Filed 06/09/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 72

the country without having been lawfully admitted. As such, he is an ‘applicant for admission’

who is not entitled to a bond hearing.” (ECF No. 4 at 3).

7. They further point to Petitioner’s criminal history as a basis for detention. (Id. at

2-3).

8. Respondents acknowledge that the statutory arguments and facts in this case are

materially identical to those that this Court has already rejected in Patel v. Almodovar, No. 25-cv-

1534, 2025 WL 3012323 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2025) and other cases. (Id. at 1 & n.1)

9. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), 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.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(c)(3). 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989).

10. Petitioner was detained within this Court’s jurisdiction and by a custodian within

this Court’s jurisdiction when he filed the Petition, and he asserts that his continued detention

violates due process. Therefore, this Court has habeas jurisdiction over his claims. Trump v. J. G.

G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025) (per curiam) (noting jurisdiction for “core habeas petitions” lies in

the district of confinement).

11. This Court concludes that Petitioner is being unlawfully detained under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1225 because Petitioner was apprehended inside the United States after residing here for an

extended period, and therefore he should have been detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which requires

an opportunity to seek bond.1 See Patel, 2025 WL 3012323, at *3-4; see also Barbosa da Cunha

1
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) does not strip the Court of jurisdiction over Petitioner’s challenge to his
continued detention because the challenge is collateral to “the removal process,” and is not
2
Case 2:26-cv-06228-SDW Document 7 Filed 06/09/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 73

v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61, 84-85 (2d Cir. 2026); but see Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128, 1136 (8th

Cir. 2026) (holding that “§ 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention of unadmitted aliens already

present inside the United States”); Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026)

(holding that noncitizen’s status as an applicant for admission does not turn on where or how the

noncitizen entered the United States).2

12. Therefore, this Court will grant the Petition and order Respondents to provide

Petitioner with a bond hearing.

13. An appropriate order follows.

Hon. Susan D. Wigenton,
United States District Judge
Dated: June 9, 2026

“inextricably linked” to any removal action. See Khalil v. President, United States, 164 F.4th 259,
274 (3d Cir. 2026).
2
Avila and Buenrostro-Mendez are not binding authority, and this Court is unpersuaded by their
reasoning for many of the reasons articulated in the dissenting opinions, including that the panels’
interpretation risks rendering significant portions of the statutory scheme superfluous and
internally inconsistent. See Avila, 170 F.4th at 1138-40 (Erickson, J., dissenting); Buenrostro-
Mendez, 166 F.4th at 510 (Douglas, J., dissenting).
3

File and source

File: 7.pdf
Size: 292,293 bytes
SHA-256: 7727b654125b702a7a38a8550c6fb072e0ec5414ae88607dfeba8d7a2e772278
Our copy: 7.pdf
Original: archive.org