govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_26-cv-06027-0

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
SALVADOR PEREZ TOSHUA, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
TODD BLANCHE, et al., 
Respondents. 
Case No. 2:26-cv-06027 (BRM) 
 
OPINION 
 
MARTINOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE 
Before the Court is Petitioner Salvador Perez Toshua’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of 
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing his detention violates his 
constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1.) Respondents filed a letter answer (ECF No. 5), and Petitioner 
replied (ECF No. 6). Having reviewed and considered the parties’ submissions filed in connection 
with the Petition and having declined to hold oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 78(b), for the reasons set forth below and for good cause having been shown, 
Petitioner’s Petition is DENIED. 
I. B
ACKGROUND 
 Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, initially unlawfully entered the United States on June 27, 
2012. (ECF No. 5 at 1.) On that date, Petitioner was arrested by immigration officials. (ECF No. 
5-1 at 2.) On June 28, 2012, Petitioner was issued a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal. (ECF 
No. 5-2.) On June 30, 2012, Petitioner was removed from the United States. (ECF No. 5-3.) PageID: <pageID>
2 
 
 Petitioner submits he re-entered the United States approximately thirteen years ago. 1 (See 
ECF No. 1 at 15.) On May 25, 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officials 
arrested Petitioner pursuant to an I-205 Warrant of Removal. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) On the same date, 
Petitioner was served with a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order and has been 
detained under that final order of removal. (ECF No. 5-6.) 
 On March 2 7, 2026, Petitioner filed the Petition arguing, among other things, the 
government may not detain him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and he is entitled to a bond hearing 
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ( See generally ECF No. 1.) Respondents filed a n expedited response 
arguing Petitioner is lawfully detained based on his reinstated final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1231(a). (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner replied arguing due process requires his release from custody. 
(ECF No. 6.) 
II. L
EGAL STANDARD 
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), habeas relief may be extended to a prisoner only when he “is 
in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2241(c)(3). A federal court has jurisdiction over such a petition if the petitioner is “in custody” 
and the custody is allegedly “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Maleng v. Cook , 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). A district court’s 
authority includes jurisdiction to hear habeas challenges to immigration- related detention. 
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). The burden is on Petitioner to show he is in custody 
 
1 Petitioner submits he “entered the U.S. approximately 13 years ago, without inspection, [and] 
has resided continuously since then in the United States.” (ECF No. 1 at 15–16.) Petitioner also 
alleges he “has not been previously in contact with immigration authorities.” (Id. at 16.) Because 
Respondents have provided the Court with documentation showing Petitioner was previously 
removed from the United States in 2012, the Court finds Petitioner re -entered the United States 
approximately thirteen years ago. PageID: <pageID>
3 
 
in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Walker v. Johnston, 312 
U.S. 275, 286 (1941). 
III. DECISION 
 In the Petition, Petitioner argues he is unlawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. ( See 
ECF No. 1 at 15–53.) The Court disagrees. 
 The record establishes Petitioner is subject to a reinstated final order of removal. Petitioner 
does not dispute, as he does not acknowledge, the following: (1) on June 28, 2012, Petitioner was 
issued a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal; (2) on June 30, 2012, he was removed from the 
United States; and (3) he unlawfully re-entered the United States. 
 Based on the above, ICE reinstated Petitioner’s final order of removal on May 25, 2026. 
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), when a noncitizen re -enters the United States after having been 
removed under a prior order, “the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date” and 
the noncitizen “shall be removed under the prior order.” The Supreme Court has made clear 
detention in this postur e is governed by § 1231. See Johnson v. Guzman Chavez , 594 U.S. 523, 
529–30 (2021) (explaining once a removal order is reinstated, the noncitizen is in a post- final-
order posture and detention is governed by § 1231’s removal -period framework). Accordingly, 
Petitioner’s detention arises under § 1231(a). 
 Any argument that Petitioner’s detention is unlawful because his removal order was not 
reinstated until fourteen years after his initial expedited removal order is unavailing. Respondents 
have provided the Court with documentation show ing Petitioner’s initial order of removal was 
effectuated when Petitioner was removed from the United States in June 2012. Following his 
removal, Petitioner re-entered the United States. Petitioner does not argue he lawfully re -entered 
the United States or Respondents were aware of his re-entry and chose not to reinstate his removal PageID: <pageID>
4 
 
order. Reinstatement is an administrative process that confirms the existence of a prior removal 
order and unlawful re-entry. See Ponta-Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 557 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2009) 
(holding reinstatement requires only a determination of prior removal, identity, and unlawful re -
entry, and does not require a hearing before an immigration judge) . Once those conditions are 
satisfied, § 1231 governs. 
Section 1231 states in relevant part , “when a [] [noncitizen] is ordered removed, the 
Attorney General shall remove the [noncitizen] from the United States within a period of 90 days 
(in this section referred to as the ‘removal period’).” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). This 90- day 
detention is mandatory. See Zadvydas , 533 U.S. at 683 (“While removal proceedings are in 
progress, most [noncitizens] may be released on bond or paroled. After entry of a final removal 
order and during the 90- day removal period, however, [noncitizens] must be held in custody.” 
(citation omitted)). Petitioner was taken into custody on May 25 , 2026. As a result, Petitioner’s 
detention is still within the 90 -day mandatory detention period, rendering any challenge to his 
§ 1231 detention premature. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons expressed above, Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. An 
appropriate order follows. 
 
 /s/ Brian R. Martinotti 
HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Dated: June 15, 2026 PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight