govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-1_26-cv-06511-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
ALEX V CASTRO MIRANDA, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
LUIS SOTO, et al., 
Respondents. 
 
Case No. 26–cv–06511–ESK 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
THIS MATTER is before the Court on petitioner Alex V Castro Miranda’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. 5.) 
1. Petitioner is a citizen of Brazil. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.) He entered the 
United States without inspection on or about November 24, 2021. (Id. ¶ 3.) 
2. On March 25, 2026, the Long Branch Police Department arrested 
petitioner for possession of CDS , N.J.S.A. § 2C:35-10(a)(1); 
maintaining/operating a CDS production facility , N.J.S.A. § 2C:35-4; CDS 
manufacture/distribute/possession with intent, N.J.S.A. § 2C:35-5(b)(1); and 
use/possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia N.J.S.A. § 2C:36-2(a). 
(Id. ¶ 32.) The charges are still pending. (Id.) 
3. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) took petitioner into 
custody after his arrest. (Id. ¶ 33.) Petitioner has been detained at Delaney 
Hall Detention Facility since that time. (Id.) 
4. Petitioner argues that his detention is unlawful and asks this court 
to order his immediate release. (Id. ¶ 34.) 
5. On June 5, 2026, an immigration judge ordered petitioner removed 
from the United States. (ECF No. 5–6.) That order is not yet final. 
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 9, 2026 arguing that petitioner 
is properly detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) because he is a noncitizen 
“who entered without inspection or parole who was detained by immigration 
authorities in the interior of the country without having been lawfully admitted. 
Accordingly, Petitioner is an ‘applicant for admission’ who is not entitled to a 
bond hearing.” (ECF No. 5 p.  3.) 
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 he 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). 
Accordingly, 
IT IS on this 16th day of June 2026 ORDERED that: 
1. Petitioner’s Petition is GRANTED. Respondents shall provide 
petitioner with an individualized bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) 
before an immigration judge within 7 days of this Order. Respondents shall 
provide the immigration court a copy of this Opinion and Order prior to the 
hearing. 
2. Petitioner, or his counsel, shall have notice of the bond hearing, a 
reasonable opportunity to prepare, and be permitted to reschedule the hearing 
without seeking this Court’s intervention. 
3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. 
 
 /s/ Edward S. Kiel 
EDWARD S. KIEL 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight