govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-3_26-cv-06459-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
JOSE BAYARDO ORTEGA MUNOZ, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
JASON BENZEL, et al., 
 
Respondents. 
 
Civil Action No. 26-6459 (ZNQ) 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 
 
QURAISHI, District Judge 
 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Jose Bayardo Ortega Munoz’s habeas 
petition (ECF No. 1) challenging his ongoing immigration detention. Following an order to show 
cause, the Government fil ed a response to the petition (ECF No. 8), to which Petitioner replied. 
(ECF No. 9.) For the following reasons, the petition is granted, and Petitioner shall be released. 
 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Ecuador who entered the United States without 
inspection or admission in 2012. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) On May 24, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by 
immigration officials during a targeted enforcement operation in Newark New Jersey. (ECF No. 
8-1 at 2.) He has remained in detention since that date without bond. ( Id.) Petitioner does not 
have significant criminal history in the United States.
1 
 
1 Petitioner’s immigration records reflect only that he has a 2022 New York DWI conviction, (see 
ECF No. 8- 1 at 2), which is generally considered a misdemeanor offense under New York’s 
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192. Perez v. City of New York, No. 20- 1359, 2022 WL 4236338, at 
*17 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2022). In the absence of any clear facts indicating that this offense was 
especially serious, this Court does not consider this offense significant or relevant to the 
appropriate relief in this matter. PageID: <pageID>
2 
 
 The Government argues in this matter that Petitioner is lawfully detained as an applicant 
for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). ( See ECF No. 8.) The Government recognize s, 
however, that its position “relies on the same statutory-interpretation arguments,” (ECF No. 8 at 
3), this Court has repeatedly rejected in finding that § 1225(b)(2) does not apply to aliens who 
have resided within the United States for a lengthy period of time after crossing the border without 
being admitted or paroled. See, e.g., Valerio v. Joyce, No. 25-17225, 2025 WL 3251445 (D.N.J. 
Nov. 21, 2025) ; see also Hueso v. Soto, No. 26- 1455, 2026 WL 539271, at 3 (D.N.J. Feb. 26, 
2026); Tyagi v. Soto, No. 26- 962, 2026 WL 478184, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2026). As Petitioner 
clearly falls into this category as he is an alien who entered the United States without admission 
or inspection and remained in the United States for approximately fourteen years prior to being 
taken into custody, he may not be held under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). See, e.g., Valerio, 2025 WL 
3251445, at *3. Petitioner’s continued mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) is therefore 
unlawful. Id. Petitioner’s habeas petition shall therefore be granted. 
 Turning to the question of the appropriate relief, t he Government argues that the Court 
should provide Petitioner only with the bond hearing to which he would have been entitled had he 
been taken into custody under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See, e.g., Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. 
Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 278- 79 (3d Cir. 2018) (potentially removable aliens not subject to 
mandatory detention statutes are subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) under which they 
are entitled to a bond hearing at which t hey can secure bond by demonstrating they are neither a 
flight risk or danger). Notwithstanding that Petitioner may be subject to the provisions 8 U.S.C. § 
1226(a) if properly taken into custody under that statute in the future, the Government did not take 
Petitioner into custody under § 1226(a) , nor has it provided Petitioner with the procedural PageID: <pageID>
3 
 
protections available to aliens under § 1226(a) , including a proper bond hearing at which release 
on bond is a live possibility. As this Court has explained, 
It is not incumbent upon the Court to fix the Government’s flawed 
application of § 1225(b)(2) by converting Petitioner’s detention into 
a potentially lawful alternate form under a different statute with 
different procedural requirements and rules. This is especially so in 
light of the Government’s . . . continued employment of an oft 
rejected legal position. See Hueso , 2026 WL 539271, at *3- 4. 
Because the Government has only sought to detain Petitioner under 
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), and he is clearly not s ubject to detention 
under that statute, and as that statute clearly does not apply to 
Petitioner, the Government [must] release Petitioner from custody 
immediately. 
 
Fajardo-Nugra v. Soto, No. 26-975, 2026 WL 579192, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 2, 2026). 
Petitioner’s habeas petition (ECF No. 1) shall therefore be granted, and the Government 
shall release Petitioner immediately. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be 
entered. 
 
Date: June 17, 2026 
 s/ Zahid N. Quraishi 
 ZAHID N. QURAISHI 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight