govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-1_26-cv-06840-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
ANAHI GABRIELA BARBECHO 
QUINDE, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
ARTHUR WILSON, et al., 
Respondents. 
 
Case No. 26–cv–06840–ESK 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
THIS MATTER is before the Court on petitioner Anahi Gabriela 
Barbecho Quinde’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2241 (Petition) (ECF No. 1.) Respondents oppose the Petition. (ECF No. 6.) 
1. Petitioner is a citizen of Ecuador. (ECF No. 1 p. 7.) She entered 
the United States without inspection in September 2021. (Id.) 
2. She has lived in the United States since that time and has a seven -
month-old child who is a United States citizen. (Id.) She is currently 
pregnant. (Id.) 
3. On June 5, 2026, the Highstown Police Department arrested 
petitioner for simple assault and harassment . (ECF No. 6 –1 p.   2.) The 
charges are still pending. (Id.) 
4. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took petitioner into 
custody after her arrest. (ECF No. 6 –2.) Petitioner has been detained at 
Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility since that time. (ECF No. 1 p. 1.) 
5. Petitioner argues that her detention is unlawful and asks this court 
to order her immediate release or a bond hearing. (Id. p. 8.) 
6. 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). PageID: <pageID>
 
2 
 
7. Respondents filed an answer on June 15, 2026 arguing that 
petitioner is properly detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because she is 
a noncitizen “who entered without admission or parole after inspection and was 
detained by immigration authorities in the interior of the country without 
having been lawfully admitted . As such, she is an ‘applicant for admission ’ 
who is not entitled to a bond hearing.” (ECF No. 6 p.  2.) 
8. I conclude that petitioner is being unlawfully detained under § 1225 
because petitioner was apprehended inside the United States after residing 
here for an extended period, and therefore she should have been detained under 
§ 1226, which requires an opportunity to seek bond. See Ayala Amaya v. 
Bondi, No. 25–cv–16428, 2025 WL 3033880, at *2–3 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2025). 
9. I decline to allow respondents to transform an unlawful detention 
into a lawful one through alternative, retrospective, post hoc justification 
presented mid-litigation, as doing so would give the Government a free pass to 
violate a person ’s statutory and constitutional rights first and search for 
authority later. “The Constitution does not permit the United States 
Government to target people on the streets, arrest them without serving any 
papers, deny them meaningful due process, and detain them for arbitra ry or 
indefinite periods of time while they engage in phishing expeditions to justify 
the arrests.” Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349, 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); 
see also Lopez Benitez v. Francis , 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 486 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) 
(releasing petitioner and explaining that the court “cannot credit [r]espondents’ 
new position as to the basis for . . . detention, which was adopted post hoc and 
raised for the first time in this litigation.”); Arias Gudino v. Lowe, 785 F. Supp. 
3d 27, 46 n.  8 (M.D. Pa. 2025) (releasing petitioner and discussing the 
impropriety of allowing the government to proceed on “post hoc justifications 
for detention”). 
Accordingly, 
IT IS on this 17th day of June 2026 ORDERED that: 
1. Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition is GRANTED. Within 24 hours of this 
Order’s entry, respondents shall RELEASE petitioner under the same 
conditions, if any, that existed prior to her detention, including, but not limited 
to, release: (1) within the State of New Jersey; (2) without the imposition of 
additional conditions (such as ankle monitors or electronic tracking devices); 
and (3) with all clothing and outerwear worn at the time of detention, or other 
appropriate attire. 
2. Respondents shall return to petitioner all personal property 
belonging to petitioner —including, but not limited to, any driver ’s license, PageID: <pageID>
 
3 
 
passport, immigration documents, currency, or cellphone —that was seized at 
the time of detention and that is currently in their custody, possession, or 
control, whether maintained directly by respondents or by any contracted or 
affiliated facility, and tha t such property shall be returned in the same 
condition as it existed immediately prior to petitioner’s detention. 
3. Respondents shall file a letter on the docket confirming the date and 
time of petitioner ’s release and that the conditions set forth above have been 
satisfied. 
4. Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from rearresting 
or otherwise detaining petitioner under §  1225, which this Court has found 
inapplicable to her. 
5. Respondents shall not arrest, detain, or otherwise take petitioner 
into custody under 8 U.S.C. §  1226(a) for a period of 14 days following her 
release, so as to ensure full effectuation of this Court’s judgment and to prevent 
circumvention of the relief granted. 
6. Any future detention or re-detention of petitioner must comply with 
all statutory and constitutional requirements, including the identification of a 
lawful statutory basis for detention and the provision of adequate procedural 
and substantive due process. 
7. To the extent that respondents seek to re -arrest or otherwise re -
detain petitioner under any statutory authority, including but not limited to 
§§ 1225 or 1226, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over the matter and 
petitioner may move to reopen these proceedings before this Court without the 
need to file a new habeas petition. 
8. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. 
 
 /s/ Edward S. Kiel 
EDWARD S. KIEL 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight