govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-1_26-cv-05631-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
STEVEN IVAN TAGLE SANCHEZ, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
LUIS SOTO, et al., 
Respondents. 
 
Case No. 26–cv–05631–ESK 
 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
THIS MATTER is before the Court on petitioner Steven Ivan Tagle 
Sanchez’s second petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2241 (Second Petition). (ECF No. 1.) 
1. Petitioner is a citizen of Peru. (ECF No. 1 p.  2.) He entered the 
United States in 2022. (Id.) 
2. The Department of Homeland Security (Department) arrested 
petitioner in December 2025 and detained him in Delaney Hall Detention 
Facility. (Id. p.  2.) 
3. Petitioner filed his first habeas petition (First Petition) on December 
27, 2025. Tagle Sanchez v. Soto, No. 25–cv–19000 (D.N.J. filed Dec. 27, 2025). 
On January 8, 2026, I concluded that petitioner was illegally detained pursuant 
to 28 U.S.C. §1225 because he was apprehended inside the United States after 
residing here for an extended period. (First Petition, ECF No. 5 (citing 
Bethancourt Soto v. Soto , 807 F. Supp. 3d 397 (D.N.J. 2025).) I ordered 
respondents to treat petitioner as being detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1226 
and provide him with a bond hearing. (Id.) 
4. A bond hearing was conducted on January 13, 2026, at which time 
the immigration judge concluded petitioner was a flight risk and denied 
petitioner bond. (Id., ECF No. 8–1 p. 2.) 
5. Petitioner filed a letter alleging that he was denied due process 
during the hearing. (Id., ECF No. 7.) I concluded that his arguments were 
“challenges to the immigration judge ’s credibility determination and weighing 
of the evidence, which are discretionary determinations beyond this Court ’s 
review.” (Id., ECF No. 12 (citing 8 U.S.C. §  1226(e).) The matter was closed 
on February 3, 2026. (Id.) PageID: <pageID>
 
2 
 
6. The Second Petition followed on May 18, 2026. (ECF No. 1.) 
Petitioner argues that the immigration court did not provide him with adequate 
process during his bond hearing. (Id. pp. 10, 11.) He further asserts that his 
detention has become unduly prolonged and violates his due process rights. 
(Id. pp.  12, 15, 18.) 
7. Respondents oppose the Second Petition. (ECF No. 5.) 
8. 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). 
9. Petitioner had a bond hearing on January 13, 2026 and challenged 
the fairness of that hearing in the First Petition proceedings. (First Petition, 
ECF Nos. 8 –1, 7.) I considered petitioner ’s arguments and the transcript of 
the bond hearing and concluded that the arguments only challenged the 
immigration court’s discretionary decisions. (Id., ECF No. 12.) Petitioner’s 
current claim challenging the fairness of the hearing is duplicative and will be 
dismissed. 
10. As to his challenges to his detention, “[r]espondents unquestionably 
possess the authority to detain non -citizens during removal proceedings when 
Congress has authorized them to do so under § 1226(a).” Zheng v. Rokosky, No. 
26–cv–01689, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2026 WL 800203, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2026). 
11. “[T]he creation of statutory rights associated with a given 
immigration status falls exclusively within the purview of Congress ... .” 
Osorio-Martinez v. Att’y Gen. United States of Am. , 893 F.3d 153, 172 (3d Cir. 
2018). Section 1226 and its implementing regulations require the Department 
to “provide detainees with a ‘prompt bond hearing.’” Zheng, 2026 WL 800203, 
at *3 (quoting Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 278 
(3d Cir. 2018)). “Not only do the statute and federal regulations require a bond 
hearing, the Constitution does as well.” Id. at *4. 
12. Petitioner has been detained for approximately six months, but 
duration alone cannot “sustain a due process challenge by a detainee who has 
been afforded the process contemplated by §  1226(a) and its implementing 
regulations.” Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 277 
(3d Cir. 2018). “Unlike § 1226(c) detainees ... who were detained for prolonged 
periods without being given any opportunity to apply for release on bond, 
[petitioner] was granted meaningful process prior to filing his habeas petition.” 
Id. at 279–80. PageID: <pageID>
 
3 
 
13. “The Third Circuit recognized the concern that, despite an initial 
bond hearing, detention under § 1226(a) might become unreasonably prolonged 
and may warrant relief beyond the bond hearing provided by the statute and 
its implementing regulations.” Chinoso Onuwa v. Field Office Director , No. 
26–cv–02403, 2026 WL 772435, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 19, 2026) (cleaned up) (citing 
Borbot, 906 F.3d at 280). However, it declined to decide what those 
circumstances may be. Id. 
14. “Here, Petitioner has been detained for significantly less time than 
the petitioner in Borbot, who had been detained for two years before filing his 
petition. He also had a bond hearing a few months ago. Petitioner’s 
‘relatively brief detention since that date without a bond hearing does not 
violate his due process rights.’” Guillen v. Soto , No. 26 –cv–03285, 2026 WL 
1005326, at *3 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2026) (quoting Viantsko v. Lowe, No. 4:26–cv–
00563, 2026 WL 963038, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2026)).1 
Accordingly, 
IT IS on this 9th day of June 2026 ORDERED that: 
1. Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition is DENIED. 
2. Any restrictions imposed on petitioner’s location are LIFTED. 
3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. 
 
 /s/ Edward S. Kiel 
EDWARD S. KIEL 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
1 I note that § 1226(a) detainees are entitled to request a custody redetermination 
from the immigration courts upon a showing of changed circumstances. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1003.19(e). PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight