Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________
N o 25-CV-6720 (RER)
_____________________
L UZ DARY HINESTROZA ARANGO
VERSUS
KENNETH GENALO; TODD M. L YONS; K RISTI N OEM; AND PAMELA BONDI
___________________
MEMORANDUM
___________________
RAMÓN E. REYES, JR., District Judge:
Petitioner Luz Dary Hinestroza Arango (“Arango” or “Petitioner”), a native and
citizen of Colombia, was arrested by U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)
officers on December 3, 2025, pursuant to an I-200 Warrant of Arrest, following an asylum
interview appointment. (ECF No. 13-1 at 5). Arango filed a petition for habeas corpus with
this Court two days later seeking, inter alia, release from custody. (ECF No.1 at 9–10).
On December 15, 2025, this Court held a hearing regarding Arango’s petition. Following
arguments by the parties, this Court GRANTED the writ and directed Respondents to
release Arango forthwith. (ECF No. 18). The Court’s reasoning in doing so is as follows.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner came to the United States in 1998 or 1999 on a non-immigrant B1/B2
Visitor Visa. (ECF Nos. 1 ¶ 3; 1-1 at 5; 11-1 ¶ 3; 13-1 at 7).1 Petitioner does not refute
1 Arango’s Notice to Appear states that she was admitted to the United States on or about November 21,
1998, and was permitted to remain in the country until May 20, 1999. (ECF 13-1 at 7). Petitioner states that
Case 1:25-cv-06720-RER Document 20 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
that she overstayed her visa and has lived in the United States ever since. (ECF 1 ¶ 3).
Nine years ago, Petitioner submitted an I-589 application for asylum with United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). (ECF No. 7 at 1). Separately, on March
8, 2023, Petitioner’s U.S. citizen daughter submitted to USCIS an I-130 Petition for Alien
Relative, with Petitioner as the beneficiary. (ECF 1-1 at 3). On October 7, 2023, USCIS
notified Petitioner’s daughter that her I-130 Petition for Alien Relative was approved. (ECF
1-1 at 3). Sometime after the I-130 was approved, Petitioner submitted a form I-485
Application for Adjustment of Status. (ECF 1 ¶ 4). That application is currently pending.
On December 3, 2025, Arango appeared for an asylum interview appointment at
the USCIS asylum office in Bethpage, New York. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 4). Arango presented a
letter to withdraw her I-589 asylum application, as well as proof of the approved I-130 and
pending I-485. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 6). After being at the asylum office for several hours, DHS
arrested and detained Arango, transported her to the ICE “Temporary Hold Room” (ICE-
ERO office) located at the United States Courthouse, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip,
New York,2 and served her with an I-200 Warrant of Arrest. (ECF Nos. 11-1 ¶ 4; 13-1 ¶ 3;
13-1 at 5). Petitioner’s counsel then filed a motion for a pre-filing bond hearing with the
immigration court. (ECF No. 15 at 2).
Two days later, on December 5, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) served Arango with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) “charging her as inadmissible
she came to the United States on May 20, 1999. (ECF 1 ¶ 3). While not relevant to this Court’s analysis,
the Court notes the slight variation in factual background by the parties.
2 Bethpage and Central Islip, New York are roughly 20 miles apart.
Case 1:25-cv-06720-RER Document 20 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
under 	INA 	§ 237(a)(1)(B), 	8 	U.S.C. 	§ 1227(a)(1)(B), 	in 	that 	after 	admission 	as 	a
nonimmigrant under Section 101(a)(15) of the Act, she had remained in the United States
for a time longer than permitted, in violation of this Act or any other law of the United
States.” (ECF Nos. 11-1 ¶ 4; 13-1 at 7). Arango was also “served with a Notice of Custody
Determination which determined that ‘pending a final administrative determination in [her]
case, [she] will be detained by the Department of Homeland Security.’” (ECF Nos. 13-1
¶ 5; 13-1 at 11). On the Notice of Custody Determination, Arango requested that an
immigration judge review the custody determination. (ECF No. 13-1 at 11). Arango was
then transported from Central Islip, New York, to Newark, New Jersey. (ECF No. 11-1
¶ 5). That same day, Arango’s counsel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this
Court. (ECF No.1 at 9–10). This Court issued an Order directing that Petitioner not be
removed from the United States or transferred to a jurisdiction outside of the Eastern
District of New York, Southern District of New York, or District of New Jersey. (ECF No.
6).
Between December 6, 2025, and December 11, 2025, in violation of this Court’s
Order, Arango was moved from New Jersey to Arizona and Louisiana, and places in
between. (ECF Nos.11-1 ¶¶ 5, 8–9; 13-1 ¶ 8). Further, between those dates, Arango’s
counsel sought review of Arango’s custody determination by an immigration judge on four
separate occasions, in both New York and New Jersey. (ECF No. 15 at 1). Bond hearings
were scheduled and subsequently cancelled by the immigration courts because Arango
was not located in their jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 11-1 ¶ 15; 15-1 at 2, 4–7). Finally, on
December 12, 2025, Arango was transferred back to the District of New Jersey in
Case 1:25-cv-06720-RER Document 20 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
compliance with this Court’s prior Order, and is being held at the Delaney Hall Detention
Facility in Newark, New Jersey. (ECF 13-1 ¶ 8).
DISCUSSION
I. 	Arango’s Constitutional Due Process Rights Were Violated
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents the Government from
depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const.
amend. V. “It is well established that such protection extends to noncitizens, including
those who are in removal proceedings.” Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475,
492 (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
There are two due process violations related to Arango’s arrest and detention that
require granting of the writ.
First, there is no indication in the record that a custody determination was made
before or contemporaneous with Arango’s December 3, 2025, arrest. This is a violation
of Arango’s due process rights. See Gopie v. Lyons, No. 25-CV-05229 (SJB), 2025 WL
3167130, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2025). Under Section 1226(a), the Attorney General,
or its designated officers, may “arrest” or “detain” a noncitizen pending a removal
decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). “But before the Government may exercise such discretion
to detain a person, Section 1226(a) and 8 C.F.R. 1236.1(c)(8) require ICE officials to
make an individualized custody determination.” Gopie, 2025 WL 3167130, at *2 (citation
omitted). “ICE must allow the noncitizen to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the officer
that . . . release would not pose a danger to property or persons, and that the noncitizen
is likely to appear for any future proceeding.” Kelly v. Almodovar, No. 25 Civ. 6448 (AT),
2025 WL 2381591, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2025) (citation and brackets omitted). In
Case 1:25-cv-06720-RER Document 20 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
anticipation of the writ hearing, this Court ordered the Respondents to provide, among
other things, “[a]ny individualized custody determination relating to Petitioner made by an
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer prior to or contemporaneously with her
arrest” and “[w]hether any such detention determination was made as a matter of
discretion, or part of a mandatory policy and what factors were considered in reaching the
result.” (ECF No. 12 at 2). Respondents failed to provide the Court with this information.
The only evidence that this Court has been provided is that on December 5, 2025, two
days after the arrest, an ICE official issued a Notice of Custody determination (ECF 13-1
at 11), which is not enough. There is no evidence that the immigration officer who issued
the arrest warrant, or anyone else, made an independent determination of whether
detention was warranted prior to or concurrently with Petitioner’s arrest.
Second, Arango was not served with a I-862 Notice to Appear (“NTA”) until two
days after her arrest, which was too late. Gopie, 2025 WL 3167130, at *1. Under Section
1236.1, “[a]t the time of issuance of the notice to appear, or at any time thereafter . . . the
respondent may be arrested and taken into custody under the authority of Form I–200,
Warrant of Arrest.” 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1. This Court is not willing to say that two days is
within the concept of contemporaneousness. Because Arango was not served with a NTA
under after her arrest, her due process rights were violated.
II. 	Arango Is Not Required to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
This Court rejects Respondents’ argument that Petitioner “has not exhausted
available administrative remedies and is therefore not entitled to relief from this Court.”
(ECF 13 at 2). As evidenced by Petitioner’s letters to the Court (ECF Nos. 15 at 2; 15-1
at 2–7), and representations at the December 15, 2025, hearing, Petitioner and her
Case 1:25-cv-06720-RER Document 20 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
counsel did everything within their power to exhaust her administrative remedies and get
a custody re-determination hearing before an immigration judge. Petitioner was moved
here, there, and anywhere, and could not be within the jurisdiction where her bond
hearings were requested, up to and including her hearing scheduled for December 12,
2025. This is not a failure to exhaust case. Arango “is not required to exhaust a process
that was deficient from the outset.” Gopie, 2025 WL 3167130, at *3.
Even if this were a failure to exhaust case, this Court would excuse Petitioner’s
failure. “[C]ourts in this Circuit may excuse exhaustion where certain exceptions apply,
including when (1) available remedies provide no genuine opportunity for adequate relief;
(2) irreparable injury may occur without immediate judicial relief; (3) administrative appeal
would 	be 	futile; 	and 	(4) 	in 	certain 	instances 	a 	plaintiff 	has 	raised 	a 	substantial
constitutional question.” Lopez Benitez, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 496 (citation omitted). The
Court 	excuses 	exhaustion, 	if 	any, 	because 	Petitioner 	has 	raised 	a 	substantial
constitutional 	question. 	“[G]iven 	the 	nature 	of 	the 	constitutional 	violation 	[Arango]
sustained 	here—i.e., 	Respondents’ 	failure 	to 	conduct 	any 	kind 	of 	individualized
assessment before detaining [her]—any post-deprivation review by an immigration judge
would be inadequate.” Id. at 497.3
* 	* 	*
3 A very strong argument could also be made that exceptions one, two and three apply as well.
Case 1:25-cv-06720-RER Document 20 Filed 12/16/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s writ. Petitioner is
to be released forthwith, if not already released.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ramón E. Reyes, Jr.
RAMÓN E. REYES, JR.
United States District Judge
Dated: December 16, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:25-cv-06720-RER Document 20 Filed 12/16/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>