Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTENLLER JESUS ROJAS-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
-against-
PAM BONDI, Attorney General of the United
States; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, TODD M.
LYONS, Acting Director, United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in their
official capacities, BRIAN FLANAGAN, Acting
Deputy Field Office Director for ICE in New York
City Area, in their official capacities,
Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
26-CV-895
ORDER GRANTING
PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Petitioner 	Estenller 	Jesus 	Rojas-Gonzalez 	is 	presently 	detained 	by
Respondents at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York.
He is a Venezuelan national who has resided in the United States since July 2003.
Petitioner was placed into removal proceedings after being apprehended by Customs
and Border Patrol on July 4, 2023, upon entering the United States. 	He filed an
asylum application on June 6, 2024 — still pending with the Varick Immigration
Court — and has a removal hearing scheduled for February 27, 2026. Petitioner was
detained and taken into Respondents’ custody on January 26, 2026, while riding with
a friend to go shopping.
Case 1:26-cv-00895-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
On February 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(the “Petition”), ECF No. 1, alleging that his detention violates his constitutional and
statutory rights, and seeking declaratory relief and entry of an order directing his
immediate release from detention.
On February 17, 2026, the Court issued an Order, ECF No. 4, directing
Respondents to file, by 12:00 PM on February 18, 2026, a submission (1) providing
certain 	information 	about 	Petitioner 	and 	his 	circumstances, 	(2) indicating 	the
statutory provision under which they assert the authority to detain Petitioner, and
(3) addressing whether there is any basis to distinguish the asserted grounds for
detention from the Court’s decision in Hyppolite v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4304 (NRM),
2025 WL 2829511 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025), or from any other prior decisions issued by
the undersigned in this area of law. The Court further directed that, if Respondents
asserted no basis to distinguish this Petition from the Court’s analysis in Hyppolite
or another decision of this Court, the submission could take the form of a letter so
stating, and indicating whether Respondents oppose issuance of the writ, subject to
preservation of Respondents’ arguments for appeal. 	Finally, the Court’s February
17, 2026 Order directed Respondents, in the event they took the position that this
case is distinguishable from Hyppolite, to respond to the Petition and to show cause
Case 1:26-cv-00895-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
as to why it should not be granted on or before February 20, 2026 at 2:30 PM; 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 February 18, 2026, the Court granted in part Respondents’ motion to
extend the time to file the aforementioned submission, and gave Respondents until
to February 19, 2026 at 2:00 PM to file their initial response, in light of the
government’s representation that additional time was required to obtain and review
the relevant facts and documentation required by the Court’s Order.
In their letter response filed on February 19, 2026 at 1:54 PM, 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.
Petitioner has alleged, and Respondents do not dispute, that Respondents did
not provide him with a pre-detention bond hearing, see Petition ¶ 7, ECF No. 1 at 2,
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
Case 1:26-cv-00895-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
process, because Petitioner has lived in the United States for nearly 23 years (i.e.,
since July 2003) 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, 2025 WL 2829511, at *12–16; 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);
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 provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) relied
upon by Respondents to justify the legality of Petitioner’s detention is inapplicable
here, because Petitioner 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
Case 1:26-cv-00895-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
issue to date. Cf. Resp., ECF No. 6 at 2 n.2 (citing the decisions of two 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
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.
Case 1:26-cv-00895-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
It is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Petition for 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 Friday, February 20, 2026.
In light of the fact that Petitioner is presently being held in MDC in Brooklyn,
New York, 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 (Friday, February 20, 2026), confirming that
Petitioner has been released from custody.
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).
Case 1:26-cv-00895-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/19/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
The Court’s earlier order scheduling a hearing for February 24, 2026 is hereby
vacated in light of the Court’s resolution of the merits of the petition. 	Petitioner’s
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: February 19, 2026 	/s/ Nina R. Morrison
Brooklyn, New York 	Nina R. Morrison
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00895-NRM Document 7 Filed 02/19/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>