Summary
The District of New Jersey denied Fortino Lopez Saguilan’s motion for a temporary restraining order seeking release or a new bond determination after an immigration judge denied bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The court held that the petitioner identified no constitutional defect in the bond hearing and that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) barred judicial review of the immigration judge’s bond decision. The court also noted that administrative remedies remained available and closed the habeas matter.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioner was entitled to a temporary restraining order requiring release or a new bond determination after receiving the bond hearing required under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).
- Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e) barred the district court from reviewing or setting aside the immigration judge's discretionary denial of bond absent an identified constitutional defect.
- Whether petitioner established a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury sufficient to warrant temporary injunctive relief.
Holdings
- After a detained alien receives the bond hearing required under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the district court may not use habeas or injunctive relief to conduct a second bond redetermination or review the immigration judge's discretionary bond decision absent a constitutional defect in the hearing.
- Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits because his motion sought prohibited review of the immigration judge's bond determination and identified no constitutional defect in the bond hearing.
- Petitioner did not establish irreparable injury because administrative avenues remained available to challenge or revisit the immigration judge's bond decision.
- Aliens who effect an entry into the United States and are not taken into custody until several years after that entry are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and are instead detained, if at all, under the government's discretionary authority under § 1226(a).
Key quotations
“A temporary restraining order is “an extraordinary remedy” and “should be granted only in limited circumstances.””
“No court may set aside” the immigration judge’s decision as to “the denial of bond.””
“Petitioner is thus attempting to have this Court reconsider the immigration judge’s determination, a “task Congress has expressly forbidden” this Court “from undertaking.””
Factual background
Petitioner entered the United States and was not taken into immigration custody until several years later. The district court determined that he was not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and ordered a bond hearing under § 1226(a). At that hearing, an immigration judge denied bond after finding that petitioner had not met his burden of showing that he was not a danger to the community, citing an insufficiently explained 2020 assault charge that had been dismissed. Petitioner argued that the immigration judge inadequately considered his family and community ties, including his children's special needs, and sought release through a new district-court bond determination.
Procedural history
Petitioner filed a habeas petition challenging his classification as subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and asserting that he was entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). On December 29, 2025, the court ordered that he receive a § 1226(a) bond hearing. After an immigration judge conducted the hearing on January 8, 2026, and denied bond based on a finding that petitioner had not shown he was not a danger to the community, petitioner moved for a temporary restraining order and requested a new bond determination by the district court. The court denied the motion and closed the matter.