Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOAN E. CAMPOS JOVEL,
Petitioner,
v.
PAM BONDI, in her official capacity as
Attorney General; KRISTI NOEM, in her
official capacity as U.S. Secretary of
Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; TODD LYONS, in
his official capacity as Acting Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; WILLIAM P. JOYCE in his
official capacity as Acting Director of New
York Field Office, Enforcement and
Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement; and RAUL
MALDONADO, in his official capacity as
Warden of Metropolitan Detention Center,
Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
26-CV-01193 (NRM)
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Petitioner Joan Campos Jovel is presently detained by Respondents at the
Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York. 	In his petition, he
avers that he is a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States in 2003 who
has resided in the United States for over twenty years. 	He further avers that his
father is a United States citizen; that his mother is a lawful permanent resident of
the United States; and that in June 2022, his I-130 petition for alien relative was
approved, and that since that time he has continued to await consular processing as
a lawful permanent resident.
Case 1:26-cv-01193-NRM Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Petitioner states that he was pulled over and arrested by United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents while driving to work in Nassau
County on February 17, 2026. He states that these ICE agents provided him with no
reason for his detention when they took him into custody, but simply arrested him
and transferred him to MDC, where he has been detained ever since.
On February 27, 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.
The case was assigned to the undersigned on March 2, 2026, at which time the
Court issued an Order, ECF No. 3, directing Respondents to file, by 9:00 AM on March
4, 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
the Court’s decision in H.A.C.F. v. Francis, No. 26-CV-00872 (NRM), 2026 WL 482607
(E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2026).
The 	Court 	further 	directed 	that, 	if 	Respondents 	asserted 	no 	basis 	to
distinguish this Petition from the Court’s analysis in Hyppolite or H.A.C.F., 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’
Case 1:26-cv-01193-NRM Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
arguments 	for 	appeal. 	Finally, 	the 	Court’s 	March 	2, 	2026 	Order 	directed
Respondents, in the event they took the position that this case is distinguishable from
Hyppolite or H.A.C.F., to respond to the Petition and to show cause as to why it should
not be granted on or before March 6, 2026 at 9:00AM; 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 three facts.
Respondents filed their initial submission on March 4, 2026, indicating that as
in Hyppolite, Petitioner was detained under the mandatory detention provisions of 8
U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).1 ECF No. 4. Respondents noted their disagreement with the
Court’s decision in Hyppolite and reserved their right to appeal any grant of relief in
Petitioner’s case, but did not claim any basis to distinguish this case from Hyppolite.
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 over 20 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
1 Respondents’ submission states that “it is [their] position that Mr. Rojas-
Gonzalez, like the Petitioner in Hyppolite, is subject to detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)92)(A). 	ECF No. 4 at 2. 	The Court assumes that this was a typographical
error, and that Respondents are referring to Mr. Campos Jovel, the petitioner in the
instant case.
Case 1:26-cv-01193-NRM Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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); 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. ECF No. 4 at 2 n.4 (citing the decisions of two district courts within
the Second Circuit adopting Respondents’ analysis).
The Court has also weighed the factors under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
319 (1976), which sets forth the test that courts in the Second Circuit will apply when
determining 	“the 	adequacy 	of 	process 	in 	the 	context 	of 	civil 	immigration
confinement.” Munoz Materano v. Artera, No. 25 CV 6137, 2025 WL 2630826, at *12
Case 1:26-cv-01193-NRM Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
(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 6:00PM on Wednesday, March 4, 2026.
In light of the fact that Petitioner is presently being held at 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 9:00 PM on that same date (Wednesday, March 4, 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
Case 1:26-cv-01193-NRM Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
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 March 10, 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.
/s/ Nina R. Morrison
NINA R. MORRISON
United States District Judge
Dated: 	March 4, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-01193-NRM Document 5 Filed 03/04/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>