govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-1_26-cv-06376-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
WOODLEY GEINCHARLES, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
JASON BENZEL, et al., 
Respondents. 
 
Case No. 26–cv–06376–ESK 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
THIS MATTER is before the Court on petitioner Woodley Geincharles’s 
second petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Second 
Petition). (ECF No. 1.) Respondents oppose the Second Petition. (ECF No. 
7.) 
1. Petitioner is a citizen of Haiti. (ECF No. 1 ¶  1.) The Department 
of Homeland Security (Department) detained petitioner on or about March 16, 
2025. (Id. ¶ 15.) He is presently detained in the Elizabeth Detention Center. 
(Id. ¶  1.) 
2. Petitioner argues that his detention has become overly prolonged in 
violation of his due process rights. (Id. ¶¶ 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 .) He requests 
release from custody or, in the alternative, a bond hearing. (Id. p.  28.) 
3. 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). 
4. Petitioner was detained within this Court ’s jurisdiction and by a 
custodian within this Court ’s jurisdiction when he filed the Petition, and he 
asserts that his continued detention violates due process. Therefore, this 
Court has habeas jurisdiction over his claims. Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. 670, 
672 (2025) (per curiam) (noting jurisdiction for “core habeas petitions” lies in 
the district of confinement). 
5. The parties agree that 8 U.S.C. §  1225(b) governs petitioner ’s 
detention. (ECF No. 1 ¶  21; ECF No. 7 p.  1.) “Noncitizens who are detained PageID: <pageID>
 
2 
 
pursuant to §  1225(b) have no statutory right to a bond hearing. However, 
noncitizens who are subject to prolonged detention may be entitled to a bond 
hearing should their detention become so prolonged as to become arbitrary.” 
Khan v. Soto, No. 26–cv–00856, 2026 WL 468203, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 19, 2026) 
(citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018)). 
6. “The Supreme Court and the Third Circuit have not directly 
addressed the extent of due process rights for noncitizens detained pursuant to 
§ 1225(b), but other district courts have applied the standard the Third Circuit 
announced in German Santos v. Warden Pike County Correctional Facility, 965 
F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020) in considering a due process challenge to prolonged 
detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §  1226(c).” Id. (citing Rodriguez Chavez v. 
Holman, No. 1:25–cv–00267, 2026 WL 136902, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 2 0, 2026); 
Tuser E. v. Rodriguez, 370 F. Supp. 3d 435, 442–43 (D.N.J. 2019)). 
7. I am persuaded by the reasoning of these courts and conclude that 
the German Santos factors should be applied to petitioner’s prolonged detention 
claim. These factors are: “(1) the duration of the petitioner’s detention; (2) the 
likelihood of continued detention; (3) the reasons for any delay; and (4) the 
conditions of the petitioner ’s confinement.” Rodriguez Chavez , 2026 WL 
136902, at *3 (citing German Santos, 965 F.3d at 212). 
8. “The most important factor is the duration of detention.” German 
Santos, 965 F.3d at 211. Petitioner has been detained since March 16, 2025. 
(ECF No. 1 ¶   15). “Detention of this duration substantially exceeds the 
allowable periods the Supreme Court has described as typical when upholding 
mandatory detention statutes against facial challenge.” Ibrahim v. Rokosky , 
No. 25–cv–17189, 2026 WL 296506, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2026). 
9. I conclude that the second factor weighs in petitioner ’s favor. 
Petitioner filed an appeal with Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on October 
29, 2025, and that appeal remains pending. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 15.) As of January 
26, 2026, the BIA had 219,945 pending appeals, a number that has likely 
increased since that date. See Executive Office for Immigration Review 
Workload and Adjudication Statistics, available at 
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/workload-and-adjudication-statistics (last visited 
June 9, 2026). 
10. In a prior case, r espondents described the current circumstances as 
an “unprecedented period of immigration filings in one of the hardest hit 
districts in the country.” Letter of Jordan Fox, Chief of Staff & Associate 
Deputy Attorney General, Kumar v. Soto , No. 26 –cv–00777 (D.N.J. Feb. 13, 
2026) (ECF No. 21). Given the influx of immigration habeas cases filed in this 
District and throughout the country, petitioner’s appeal may take many months 
to resolve. “[I]f the BIA rejects his appeal, he has the right to petition for PageID: <pageID>
 
3 
 
judicial review. ‘When the [noncitizen’s] removal proceedings are unlikely to 
end soon, this suggests that continued detention without a bond hearing is 
unreasonable.’” Rodriguez Chavez, 2026 WL 136902, at *3 (quoting German 
Santos, 965 F.3d at 211). 
11. Petitioner also has a pending application for temporary protected 
status. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 16.) This application has also been pending for several 
months. (Id.) 
12. There is no evidence in the record that either party caused 
unnecessary delays in petitioner’s removal proceedings by making “careless or 
bad-faith errors.” German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211 (cleaned up). Therefore, I 
consider the third factor to be neutral. 
13. I conclude the final factor, the conditions of confinement, to weigh in 
petitioner’s favor. Petitioner asserts that confinement in the Elizabeth 
Detention Center is “indistinguishable from criminal punishment.” (ECF No. 
1 ¶   24.) He states that his nutritional needs are not being met and that he 
lacks access to necessary hygiene products. (Id. ¶¶ 24, 26.) Other courts in 
this District have noted that Elizabeth Detention Center has “jail-like settings” 
and the “conditions of confinement are not ‘meaningfully different’ from 
criminal punishment.” Mashchenko v. Rokosky , No. 25 –cv–12387, 2026 WL 
185204, at *4 (D.N.J. Jan. 25, 2026). 
14. Respondents do not meaningfully address this argument ; instead, 
they argue that petitioner’s conditions of confinement claim is not appropriately 
considered in a habeas action . (ECF No. 7 p.  4.) Their argument is 
unpersuasive as the Second Petition is not a challenge to the conditions of 
petitioner’s confinement like in Hope v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310 
(3d Cir. 2020). Instead, the conditions are a singular factor to be considered 
within the context of German Santos. 
15. “The determination on reasonableness of detention is ‘highly fact 
specific.’” Khan v. Soto, No. 26–cv–00856, 2026 WL 468203, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 
19, 2026) (quoting Dryden v. Green, 321 F. Supp. 3d, 496, 502 (D.N.J. 2018)). 
16. After considering the record and totality of the circumstances, I find 
that petitioner’s detention has become unreasonably prolonged and amounts to 
an arbitrary deprivation of his liberty. Specifically, I rely on the length of 
petitioner’s detention, the probability that his detention will continue given the 
substantial immigration filings before the BIA and courts of appeals, and the 
conditions of confinement at the Elizabeth Detention Center. PageID: <pageID>
 
4 
 
Accordingly, 
IT IS on this 9th day of June 2026 ORDERED that: 
1. Petitioner’s Second Petition is GRANTED. Respondents shall 
provide petitioner with an individualized bond hearing 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 court intervention. The rescheduled date may be outside of 
the 7-day period at petitioner’s request. 
 
3. Respondents shall bear the burden at the hearing of establishing 
by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner ’s continued detention is 
necessary because he poses a flight risk or danger to the community, German 
Santos v. Warden Pike County Correctional Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 213 (3d Cir. 
2020). 
 
4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this matter. Petitioner may move to 
reopen the proceedings if necessary 
 
 
 /s/ Edward S. Kiel 
EDWARD S. KIEL 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight