Newark, NJ — A federal judge denied an immigration detainee’s request for release from ICE custody, ruling that his challenge to a removal order issued without a merits hearing must instead proceed through the federal appeals process.
The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Georgette Castner in the District of New Jersey, partially dismissed and denied a habeas corpus petition filed by Eduardo Joel Freire Quinatoa, an Ecuadorian national who has remained in immigration detention since his July 2025 arrest.
Court says it lacks authority to intervene
Freire Quinatoa argued that his detention was unlawful because an immigration judge ordered his removal without considering an asylum application he says he filed earlier.
He claimed the September 2025 decision violated his due process rights, noting he appeared at the hearing without legal representation and was unable to fully present his case.
But Judge Castner concluded that federal district courts cannot step in at this stage because immigration law requires such challenges to be handled through the established review process—first through immigration courts, then the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and ultimately a federal court of appeals.
That process is already underway. The ruling notes that Freire Quinatoa has appealed his removal order to the BIA, where the case remains pending.
Timeline reveals key dispute over asylum claim
According to court filings, Freire Quinatoa entered the United States legally on May 2, 2022, on a temporary visa but stayed beyond the authorized period.
He later filed for asylum in January 2023 and received work authorization, records show, before being taken into ICE custody following a motor vehicle-related incident.
Immigration authorities formally charged him with overstaying his visa in July 2025.
An immigration judge denied his release on bond in August 2025, citing a prior DUI conviction as evidence he posed a danger to the community.
—
Key Points
• Federal judge denies NJ detainee’s habeas petition challenging removal order
• Court says immigration appeals process—not district court—is proper venue
• Case hinges on claim that asylum application was ignored at hearing
—
Removal order issued without merits hearing
The core of the dispute centers on a September 11, 2025 hearing, where Immigration Judge Shana Chen ordered Freire Quinatoa removed after determining he had not filed any applications for relief.
Freire Quinatoa disputes that finding, arguing that he had already submitted an asylum application and participated in related proceedings.
He contends the judge’s failure to recognize that filing—and the lack of a full hearing—rendered the removal order invalid.
In his petition, he asked the federal court to vacate the removal order, grant him release or bond, and require a full immigration hearing on his asylum claim.
Judge points to limits on habeas review
The court rejected those arguments, emphasizing that federal law channels nearly all challenges to removal proceedings into a single review track handled by appellate courts.
Judge Castner cited recent Third Circuit precedent reinforcing that detainees must pursue those claims through immigration courts and appeals unless no such review is available.
Because Freire Quinatoa can still obtain review through the BIA and potentially a federal appeals court, the district court said it could not intervene.
The ruling also found that other aspects of his detention challenge either fell outside the court’s jurisdiction or lacked sufficient legal basis.
Broader implications for detainees
The case highlights a recurring tension in immigration law: detainees often attempt to use habeas petitions to challenge detention or removal orders, but courts frequently limit those claims when an administrative appeals process remains active.
Legal standards require detainees to prove their custody violates federal law or the Constitution, a burden the court said was not met in this case.
What happens next
Freire Quinatoa remains in ICE custody while his appeal continues before the Board of Immigration Appeals, which will determine whether the removal order stands or if further proceedings—such as a full asylum hearing—are required.
For now, the federal court’s ruling leaves the existing removal order in place and denies immediate relief.
