Newark, NJ — A federal judge in the District of New Jersey has rejected a habeas corpus petition filed by a Guatemalan national detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ruling that his continued detention remains lawful under federal immigration law.
The case, Jorge Mario Marroquin-Marroquin v. Daren K. Margolin et al., Civil Action No. 25-19081 (SDW), concerns a challenge brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by petitioner Jorge Mario Marroquin-Marroquin, who is being held at Delaney Hall Detention Facility in Newark. The court’s opinion, issued by U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton, found that ICE’s detention of the petitioner was still within the statutory “removal period” and therefore mandatory under federal law.
Background
According to court records, Marroquin-Marroquin, a citizen of Guatemala, lawfully entered the United States on December 4, 2003, with a non-immigrant H-2B temporary work visa, which expired on July 31, 2004. He did not depart the country after the visa expired, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him in March 2010 under Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), for overstaying his authorized period of stay.
In December 2010, Marroquin-Marroquin applied for asylum and for withholding of removal. The immigration court sustained the removability charge but, on June 24, 2022, granted his application for withholding of removal to Guatemala pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). This protection bars his deportation specifically to Guatemala but does not grant him lawful immigration status or protect him from removal to a third country.
Recent Detention and Petition
ICE arrested Marroquin-Marroquin on December 8, 2025. Two weeks later, on December 23, an immigration judge determined that he was subject to a final order of removal and denied his request for bond for lack of jurisdiction.
Marroquin-Marroquin subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his detention had become unlawful. He claimed that ICE’s 90-day mandatory detention period had already expired—calculated from the date of the June 24, 2022 order—and that there was no significant likelihood of his removal in the foreseeable future. The petition asserted that he should be released from custody and placed under supervision.
The respondents, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE Director Todd M. Lyons, and Newark Field Office officials, opposed the petition. They argued that ICE continues to lawfully detain Marroquin-Marroquin under the post-final order detention authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2), which mandates detention during the “removal period.”
The Court’s Findings
Judge Wigenton ruled that the court had jurisdiction to review the habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as Marroquin-Marroquin was detained within the court’s geographic jurisdiction at the time of filing. The court cited the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670 (2025), reaffirming that jurisdiction over “core habeas petitions” lies in the district of confinement.
Both parties agreed that 8 U.S.C. § 1231 governs detention following a final order of removal. The court emphasized that under § 1231(a)(1)(A), “when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days (in this section referred to as the ‘removal period’).” During this 90-day window, detention is mandatory. The judge further noted that even after the removal period expires, ICE may continue detention under certain circumstances—particularly when removal remains reasonably foreseeable.
The court referenced Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), which held that due process concerns may arise when detention becomes indefinite or when there is “no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” However, Judge Wigenton concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his removal was unlikely to occur or that ICE’s custody had exceeded a reasonable duration.
The opinion also pointed out that withholding of removal does not terminate a removal order but merely restricts the country to which a noncitizen may be deported. Citing Shehu v. Attorney General of the United States, 482 F.3d 652 (3d Cir. 2007), the court reiterated that such an order constitutes a “final order of removal” for purposes of the statute. Consequently, § 1231 remained the controlling provision, and ICE was entitled to detain Marroquin-Marroquin while it sought to execute his removal to a country other than Guatemala.
Outcome
The court held that Marroquin-Marroquin’s detention continues to fall within the lawful parameters of § 1231(a) and does not violate the Constitution or federal law. Accordingly, the habeas petition was denied.
The ruling underscores the limited scope of judicial review in post-removal detention cases, particularly where ICE is still within the statutory removal period or pursuing alternate removal options.
Marroquin-Marroquin, who remains at Delaney Hall in Newark, may still seek administrative review or re-file a habeas petition if his detention becomes prolonged beyond the period deemed “reasonably necessary” for removal under Zadvydas.
The case is Jorge Mario Marroquin-Marroquin v. Margolin et al., Civil Action No. 25-19081 (SDW), in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.