CAMDEN, N.J. — A federal judge has dismissed most of a Brazilian immigrant’s challenge to his expedited removal proceedings but ordered additional briefing on whether his continued detention without an individualized bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment.
In an opinion issued Thursday, Chief U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb dismissed four of the five claims raised by petitioner Pedro Henrique Santana Isidoro but reserved judgment on his constitutional challenge to continued detention and his request for appointed counsel.
According to court records, Santana Isidoro is a citizen of Brazil who was encountered by U.S. Border Patrol near Calexico, California, in February 2023 after allegedly entering the United States without admission or parole.
The Department of Homeland Security issued him a Notice to Appear, scheduling immigration proceedings in Miami.
Expedited removal challenged
Court records show that on Aug. 14, 2025, an immigration judge granted the Department of Homeland Security’s motion to dismiss the pending removal proceedings without prejudice after determining that changed circumstances made continuing the case contrary to the government’s interests.
Later that same day, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Santana Isidoro at the Miami immigration courthouse. DHS then placed him into expedited removal proceedings and issued a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal.
After an asylum officer determined Santana Isidoro did not establish a credible fear of persecution, an immigration judge affirmed that determination in March 2026, making the expedited removal decision final.
Santana Isidoro subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court arguing that DHS improperly shifted him into expedited removal despite his having lived in the United States for more than two years, that he should receive a bond hearing under federal immigration law, and that his continued detention without individualized review violates due process.
Court dismisses most claims
Judge Bumb ruled that federal law bars judicial review of several of Santana Isidoro’s challenges to DHS’s decision to place him into expedited removal proceedings.
The court dismissed claims challenging the government’s use of expedited removal procedures, its interpretation of immigration statutes governing detention, and allegations that Santana Isidoro was not adequately advised of the consequences when his original removal proceedings were dismissed.
However, the judge concluded that the existing record was insufficient to decide whether Santana Isidoro’s continued detention since August 2025, without an individualized bond hearing, violates the Fifth Amendment.
The opinion notes that the government asserted ICE planned to remove Santana Isidoro in May 2026 but did not provide declarations or supporting evidence describing that plan. Judge Bumb ordered supplemental briefing before deciding whether continued detention remains constitutionally permissible.
- Four of five habeas claims were dismissed.
- Court retained jurisdiction over due process challenge to prolonged detention.
- Judge ordered supplemental briefing on continued ICE detention.
- Request for appointed counsel remains pending.
- Petitioner remains detained while the case proceeds.
The ruling reflects the limited role federal courts play in reviewing expedited removal decisions enacted by Congress. While many statutory challenges are barred from judicial review, courts may still examine whether prolonged immigration detention complies with constitutional due process requirements.
FAQ
Who is the petitioner?
Pedro Henrique Santana Isidoro is a Brazilian citizen being held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
What is expedited removal?
Expedited removal is a streamlined immigration process that allows DHS to remove certain noncitizens without traditional removal proceedings before an immigration judge.
What did the judge decide?
The court dismissed four claims challenging the expedited removal process but ordered additional briefing on whether Santana Isidoro’s continued detention without a bond hearing violates the Constitution.
Was he released?
No. He remains in ICE custody while the federal court considers the remaining constitutional claim.
What happens next?
The parties must submit additional briefing before the court decides whether Santana Isidoro is entitled to release or an individualized bond hearing.
Sources: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Santana Isidoro v. Warden, et al., Civil Action No. 26-5669; 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
