Newark, NJ — A federal judge has dismissed a detained immigrant’s attempt to challenge his removal order and secure release from ICE custody, ruling that the court lacks authority to intervene while his case remains under review in the immigration system. The decision keeps the man in detention as his appeal continues.
The petitioner, who has been held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since July 10, 2025, argued that he was wrongfully ordered removed without a proper hearing on his asylum claim. But the court found those arguments must be handled through the immigration courts and federal appeals process—not through a habeas petition in district court.
Arrest, detention, and removal order
The case stems from the petitioner’s arrest by ICE officers in July 2025 on allegations that he overstayed his authorized time in the United States. He was served a Notice to Appear charging him as removable under federal immigration law.
An immigration judge later denied his release on bond, citing concerns that he posed a danger to the community, referencing a prior DUI conviction from 2024.
On September 11, 2025, a second immigration judge ordered his removal after determining he had not filed any applications for relief from deportation—despite the petitioner’s claim that he had submitted an asylum application.
Detainee claims due process violations
In his federal petition, filed in December 2025, the detainee argued that his constitutional rights were violated because the removal order was issued without a full hearing while he was representing himself.
He claimed:
- He was denied a meaningful opportunity to present his asylum case
- His continued detention is unlawful because the removal order is invalid
- Immigration judges failed to properly assist him as a pro se detainee
He asked the court to order his immediate release or grant bond, vacate the removal order, and require a full hearing on his asylum claim.
Key Points
• Federal judge dismissed ICE detainee’s challenge to removal order and detention
• Court ruled claims must go through immigration appeals process, not district court
• Petitioner remains in custody while appeal is pending before immigration board
Court says proper venue is immigration appeals system
The court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claims because federal law directs challenges to removal orders through a specific review process.
Under that framework, individuals must first litigate their cases before an immigration judge, then appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and only afterward seek review in a federal court of appeals.
Because the petitioner’s appeal is already pending before the BIA, the court ruled that intervention at this stage is not permitted.
The opinion emphasized that district courts cannot bypass this system, even when constitutional claims are raised, if those issues can still be addressed through the standard review process.
Ongoing appeal keeps case active
Records show the petitioner did file a timely appeal of his removal order, and that appeal remains unresolved before the BIA.
The court pointed to that ongoing process as a key reason for dismissal, noting that the petitioner still has a pathway to challenge both the removal order and the handling of his asylum claim.
What happens next
With the habeas petition dismissed, the petitioner will remain in ICE custody unless the immigration courts or appeals process result in a change to his status.
His case now continues before the Board of Immigration Appeals, which will determine whether the removal order stands or whether further proceedings are required.
No release or new hearing has been ordered at this stage.
