Opinion — Chanel Rodriguez Valerio v. Luis Soto, No. 3:26-cv-05899 (D.N.J.)

Summary

An Opinion, Document 17, filed 07/20/26, in Chanel Rodriguez Valerio v. Luis Soto, et al., Civil Action No. 26-5899 (ZNQ), District of New Jersey, by District Judge Quraishi. Petitioner's habeas petition challenges the bond hearing received before an immigration judge, on May 21, 2026. The opinion states that the immigration judge found Petitioner was not a danger to the community but posed a flight risk, and that the Court finds the hearing fundamentally fair and that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) bars second-guessing the weighing of evidence. The habeas petition is DENIED, and the motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

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 — Chanel Rodriguez Valerio v. Luis Soto, No. 3:26-cv-05899 (D.N.J.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-3-26-cv-05899-dkt-17-d-n-j-dff80f4272/, SHA-256 9c966c1943c0ecfe01a8e6db4b5746acb4eb24d708dd89a68344db7628be0d06.

Full text

Case 3:26-cv-05899-ZNQ Document 17 Filed 07/20/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHANEL RODRIGUEZ VALERIO, Civil Action No. 26-5899 (ZNQ)

Petitioner,

v. OPINION

LUIS SOTO, et al.,

Respondents.

QURAISHI, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s habeas petition (ECF No. 1) and motion

seeking a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2) through which Petitioner seeks to challenge the

bond hearing he received before an immigration judge. Following an order to answer, the

Government filed a response to the petition (ECF No. 15), to which Petitioner replied. (ECF No.

16.) For the following reasons, Petitioner’s habeas petition is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

As this Court explained in deciding Petitioner’s previous habeas petition,

Petitioner is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic who
entered the United States on a non-immigrant visitor visa on
February 5, 2025. Although that visa expired and required
Petitioner to depart as of August 4, 2025, Petitioner did not depart
but remained in the United States. On March 11, 2026, petitioner
was arrested during a targeted enforcement operation and was
placed into immigration detention pending the outcome of his
removal proceedings [pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)]. Following
his arrest, Petitioner initially requested a bond hearing before an
immigration judge. A bond hearing was scheduled for him for April
9, 2026. When Petitioner appeared for the hearing, he requested
more time to prepare, and the immigration judge therefore deemed

1
Case 3:26-cv-05899-ZNQ Document 17 Filed 07/20/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 112

the request for a bond hearing withdrawn. Petitioner did not
[immediately] file a request for a new bond hearing, but instead
[filed a habeas petition requesting] that this Court order his release
without requiring him to go through this process as he believes it
unlikely to produce his release. Although Petitioner has now been
ordered removed by an immigration judge, he has appealed that
decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals and does not have a
final order of removal at this time.

Valerio v. Soto, No. 26-3337, 2026 WL 1382775, at *1 (D.N.J. May 18, 2026).

On May 18, 2026, this Court denied Petitioner’s initial habeas petition as unexhausted as

Petitioner was entitled to seek bond before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)

and its implementing regulations, and was therefore required to do so prior to pursuing habeas

relief. Id. at *1-2. Petitioner thereafter filed a request for a bond hearing, which was held on May

21, 2026. (See ECF No. 15-2.)

At Petitioner’s bond hearing, Petitioner was represented by counsel, who presented

evidence and arguments on his behalf and requested Petitioner’s release on bond. (Id. at 3-6.) The

Government thereafter presented its opposition to Petitioner’s release. (Id. at 6-7.) Following the

presentation of Petitioner’s evidence and the Government’s opposition, the immigration judge

considered Petitioner’s arguments, found that Petitioner was not a danger to the community but

that the judge found Petitioner “poses a flight risk such that no amount of bond can mitigate.” (Id.

at 7.) The immigration judge based this decision at least in part on Petitioner’s brief time in the

United States, the fact that Petitioner had a removal order pending appeal whose merits were

speculative at best, that Petitioner had overstayed a visa and not sought to correct or update his

status in timely fashion before being taken into custody. (Id.) Although the immigration judge

found that Petitioner did have some community ties in the form of his child who lives in

Massachusetts, that those positive facts were outweighed by the flight risk implied by Petitioner’s

history, and thus found that Petitioner was a flight risk and not entitled to bond. (Id.) Petitioner

2
Case 3:26-cv-05899-ZNQ Document 17 Filed 07/20/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 113

was therefore denied bond, and was informed of his right to appeal that decision to the Board of

Immigration Appeals. (Id. at 7-8.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

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).

III. DISCUSSION

In his habeas petition, Petitioner seeks to challenge the outcome of the bond hearing he

received before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). Petitioner’s bond hearing

was held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Under that statute, the Government may detain aliens

subject to removal proceedings, but at the alien’s request, the alien must be accorded a bond

hearing at which he, and not the Government, bears the burden of demonstrating that he is neither

a flight risk nor a danger to the community. See Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. Facility,

906 F.3d 274, 278-79 (3d Cir. 2018). Once a detained alien receives a bond hearing and his request

for bond is denied, “[n]o court may set aside” the immigration judge’s decision as to “the denial

of bond.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). That a Petitioner disagrees with how the immigration judge weighed

the evidence serves as no basis for relief, and this Court has no jurisdiction to second-guess the

immigration judge’s decisions. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e); see also Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr.

Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022) (arguments as to the

3
Case 3:26-cv-05899-ZNQ Document 17 Filed 07/20/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 114

weighing of evidence by an immigration judge or the ultimate denial of bond “challenge[] . . .

discretionary determination[s] that [district courts] may not review.”). Instead, this Court may

only review bond hearings under the statute for fundamental fairness. Id. An alien receives a

fundamentally fair bond hearing when the bond hearing provides “factfinding based on a record

produced before the decisionmaker and [which is] disclosed to him or her,” an opportunity to

“make arguments on his . . . own behalf,” and the “right to an individualized determination of his

. . interests.” Id.

In this matter, Petitioner received all that Due Process requires. Petitioner was permitted

to and did present evidence and arguments on his behalf at his bond hearing, and the immigration

judge reached an individualized determination of his interests in denying him bond. Although

Petitioner argues that his bond hearing was pro forma and that the denial of bond was no more

than a “check box” decision based on the bond order issued after the hearing, the transcript of the

bond hearing clearly shows that he was permitted to present his evidence and arguments, and that

the immigration judge considered and weighed those arguments before denying him bond. Indeed,

the immigration judge explained that decision in the transcript of the hearing, specifically finding

that Petitioner was not a danger, but was a flight risk in light of his immigration history and

speculative appeal of his removal order. That Petitioner, or even this Court, may disagree with

that weighing of evidence or the ultimate outcome of his bond hearing is no basis for habeas relief,

and this Court is without jurisdiction or authority to override the immigration judge’s decision. 8

U.S.C. § 1226(e); Ghanem, 2022 WL 574624 at *2. As Petitioner received a fundamentally fair

bond hearing, he has failed to show a valid basis for habeas relief, and his petition must therefore

be denied. Petitioner’s motion seeking a temporary restraining order shall in turn be denied

without prejudice as moot in light of the denial of his habeas petition.

4
Case 3:26-cv-05899-ZNQ Document 17 Filed 07/20/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 115

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons expressed above, Petitioner’s habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED, and

Petitioner’s motion seeking a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2) is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE as moot in light of the dismissal of his habeas petition. An appropriate order

follows.

Date: July 20, 2026
s/ Zahid N. Quraishi
ZAHID N. QURAISHI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

File and source

File: 17.pdf
Size: 169,951 bytes
SHA-256: 9c966c1943c0ecfe01a8e6db4b5746acb4eb24d708dd89a68344db7628be0d06
Our copy: 17.pdf
Original: archive.org