Almonte Rojas v. Genalo et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
VIRGINIA ISABEL ALMONTE ROJAS,
Petitioner,
-against-
KENNETH GENALO, N.Y.C. DIRECTOR,
ENFORCEMENT & REMOVAL OPERATIONS,
IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
(ICE) et al.,
Respondents.
------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-6543 (EK)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Almonte Rojas petitions for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	Her petition asserts that
Respondents are wrongfully detaining her under 8 U.S.C.
1225(b)(2)(A) and, accordingly, have denied her the bond
determination to which she is entitled under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
See Pet. ¶¶ 13-14, ECF No. 1. 	Having determined that this Court
has jurisdiction over Almonte Rojas’s petition, we deny the
petition on the merits.
“Federal courts must determine that they have
jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits.” 	Lance v.
Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439, (2007). 	A habeas petition is
generally to be filed “in the district court for the district
wherein such person is in custody,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), and
Almonte Rojas is currently being detained at the Eloy Detention
Case 1:25-cv-06543-EK Document 22 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Center in Eloy, Arizona. 	Langlois Decl. ¶ 20, ECF No. 20-1.
However, at the time Almonte Rojas filed her petition, she was
being held at the Immigration & Customs Enforcement office in
Central Islip, New York. 	See id. ¶ 18; Pet. 	Accordingly, this
Court retains jurisdiction. 	See Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283,
306 (1944) (where “[d]istrict [c]ourt acquired jurisdiction
. . . the removal of [petitioner] did not cause it to lose
jurisdiction where a person in whose custody she [was]
remain[ed] within the district”).
Nonetheless, Almonte Rojas’ petition is denied on the
merits. 	First, Respondents have produced evidence that Almonte
Rojas in fact received an initial custody determination pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) — thereby negating the sole basis for
Almonte Rojas’s petition. 	See Langlois Decl. Ex. C, ECF No. 20-
4; see generally Pet. 	Second, to the extent Almonte Rojas
wishes to challenge her initial custody determination, she must
first exhaust the administrative remedies at her disposal. 	See,
e.g., Castillo Lachapel v. Joyce, 786 F. Supp. 3d 860, 864
(S.D.N.Y. 2025) (“A habeas petitioner must normally exhaust
administrative remedies before seeking federal court
intervention.”). 	And Almonte Rojas does not contest that she
has never requested a bond hearing. 	Langlois Decl. ¶ 24; see 8
C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1003.19, 1236.1(d) (outlining the
Case 1:25-cv-06543-EK Document 22 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
administrative review process of which she can and should avail
herself).1
Accordingly, Almonte Rojas’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus is denied. 	The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	February 3, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
1 Almonte Rojas argues that exhaustion should be waived because her
custody determination itself was illegitimate, having been made the day after
her arrest. 	See generally Pet.’s Letter Dated January 7, 2026, ECF No. 21.
But she cites no binding authority for that proposition.
Case 1:25-cv-06543-EK Document 22 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>