Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RENATO MERLO PUERTO,
Petitioner,
-against-
BILL LEEPER, in his official capacity as Sheriff,
Nassau County Correctional Center; JUDITH
ALMODOVAR, in her official capacity as Acting
New York Field Office Director, United States
Immigration & Customs Enforcement; KRISTI
NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; TODD M.
LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director,
United States Immigration & Customs
Enforcement; PAMELA BONDI, in her official
capacity as Attorney General, U.S. Department of
Justice,
Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
26-CV-405
ORDER GRANTING
PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Petitioner Renato Merlo Puerto is presently detained by Respondents at the
Delaney Hall Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey. 	He is a Honduran citizen
who has resided in the United States since 2004. 	Petitioner was taken into
Respondents’ custody and detained at the Nassau County Correctional Center on
January 22, 2026, before being transferred to his present location on January 24,
2026.
Case 1:26-cv-00405-NRM Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On January 22, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
(the “Petition”), ECF No. 1, alleging that his detention violates his constitutional and
statutory rights, and seeking entry of an order directing his immediate release from
detention.
On January 23, 2026, the Court issued a docket order directing Respondents
to respond to the Petition and to show cause as to why it should not be granted; to
further affirm that they have provided the Court with all facts material to Petitioner’s
claims and Respondents’ opposition to those claims; and to attach all exhibits related
to those facts. 	On January 26, 2026, the Court granted Respondents’ motion, with
Petitioner’s consent, to extend the time to file their response to January 27, 2026, in
order to more fully investigate and provide the Court with the relevant facts and
documentation required by the Court’s order.
In their response filed on January 27, 2026, ECF No. 6, Respondents have
averred that they are presently detaining Petitioner under the mandatory detention
provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). ECF No. 6 at 2. While Respondents take the
position that such detention is lawful, they acknowledge that, in its decision in
Hyppolite v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4304 (NRM), 2025 WL 2829511 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025),
this 	Court 	previously 	considered 	and 	rejected 	Respondents’ 	claims 	as 	to 	the
Case 1:26-cv-00405-NRM Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
application of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) to persons similarly situated to Mr. Merlo
Puerto. ECF No. 6 at 2–4. Respondents incorporate by reference the legal arguments
that they made in their briefing to this Court in Hyppolite, obviating the need for
further briefing as to the dispositive legal issue in this case. Id. at 4. On January 27,
2026, Petitioner filed a letter reply to Respondents’ response, arguing that Hyppolite
controls the outcome of this case. ECF No. 7 at 1.
Petitioner has alleged, and Respondents do not dispute, that Respondents did
not provide him with a pre-detention bond hearing, which this Court found in
Hyppolite is required for persons similarly situated to Petitioner.
Accordingly, as it did in Hyppolite, the Court finds that Petitioner has
established that his detention violates his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due
process, because Petitioner has lived in the United States for 22 years and is therefore
entitled to an individualized, pre-detention bond hearing under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Hyppolite v. Noem, 25 CV 4303 (NRM), 2025
WL 2829511, at *12–16 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025); see also, e.g., Artiga v. Genalo, No. 25
CV 5208 (OEM), 2025 WL 2829434, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2025); Lopez Benitez v.
Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 498–99 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2025); Rodriguez v. Bostock,
No. 25 CV 05240 (TMC), 2025 WL 2782499, at *16–26 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 30, 2025);
Case 1:26-cv-00405-NRM Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Salcedo Aceros v. Kaiser, No. 25 CV 06924 (EMC), 2025 WL 2637503, at *6–13 (N.D.
Cal. Sep. 12, 2025); Belsai D.S. v. Bondi, No. 25 CV 3682, 2025 WL 2802947, at *5
(D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2025) (collecting cases). 	Similarly, the Court finds that Petitioner
has established that the mandatory detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) and
(b)(2) relied upon by Respondents to justify the legality of Petitioner’s detention are
inapplicable here, because Petitioner has been living continuously in the United
States and is not “seeking admission” under Section 1225.
The Court hereby incorporates by reference its earlier analysis of these issues
in Hyppolite, 2025 WL 2829511, at *6–16. Given that neither the Second Circuit nor
the United States Supreme Court has yet to address this precise question, the Court
adheres to the reasoning of its earlier decision and the near-unanimous conclusion
reached by hundreds of other district courts nationwide who have considered the
issue to date. Cf. Resp., ECF No. 6 at 2 n.4 (citing the decisions of four district courts
within the Second Circuit adopting Respondents’ analysis).
The Court also finds that Petitioner has established that his detention without
a pre-deprivation bond hearing violates his right to procedural due process under the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 	See, e.g., Velasco Lopez v.
Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 851 (2d Cir. 2020) (noting that “the most significant liberty
Case 1:26-cv-00405-NRM Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
interest” recognized under the Constitution is “the interest in being free from
imprisonment”). The Court has weighed the factors under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424
U.S. 319 (1976), which applies when courts in the Second Circuit are called upon to
determine “the adequacy of process in the context of civil immigration confinement.”
Munoz Materano v. Artera, No. 25 CV 6137, 2025 WL 2630826, at *12 (S.D.N.Y., Sep.
12, 2025). 	Having considered (1) the private interest that will be affected by the
official action; (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the
procedures 	used; 	and 	(3) 	the 	government's 	interest, 	including 	the 	fiscal 	and
administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would entail, see
Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, the Court finds that the balance of interests weighs heavily
in Petitioner’s favor, and that granting the writ is an appropriate remedy for the
deprivation of his right to procedural due process.
It is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 is GRANTED. 	It is further ORDERED that Respondents must release
Petitioner from custody no later than 10:00 AM on Wednesday, January 28,
2026.
Case 1:26-cv-00405-NRM Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
In light of the fact that Petitioner is presently being held in Newark, New
Jersey, it is further ORDERED that counsel for Respondents shall keep Petitioner’s
counsel informed regarding the timing, location, and manner of Petitioner’s release
from custody, so that counsel may be present or arrange to have a family member or
other representative present at the time of Petitioner’s release.
Respondents, through counsel, shall file a letter on the docket no later
than 1:00 PM on that same date (Wednesday, January 28, 2026), confirming
that Petitioner has been released from custody, and shall send a courtesy copy of that
letter by electronic mail to morrison_chambers@nyed.uscourts.gov and to Petitioner’s
counsel at the email address listed in the Petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents are ENJOINED from re-
detaining Petitioner, absent prior authorization of this Court and without notice and
an opportunity to be heard at a pre-deprivation bond hearing, at which Respondents
will bear the burden of showing that his detention is authorized under 8 U.S.C. §
1226(a).
The Court’s earlier order scheduling a hearing for January 31, 2026 is hereby
vacated in light of the Court’s resolution of the merits of the petition. 	Petitioner’s
Case 1:26-cv-00405-NRM Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
counsel may submit an application for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal
Access to Justice Act within the time provided by the Local Rules.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2026 	/s/ Nina R. Morrison
Brooklyn, New York 	Nina R. Morrison
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00405-NRM Document 8 Filed 01/27/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>