We Win Federal Courts Order Releasing Immigrants in Habeas Cases

A Growing Record of Successful Challenges to Unlawful ICE Detention

Musa-Obregón Law P.C. has successfully litigated a series of federal habeas corpus cases across New York and New Jersey challenging unlawful immigration detention following interior arrests. In case after case, federal judges have concluded that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) improperly detained individuals under the inadmissibility statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1225, instead of the correct statutory framework governing interior arrests, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

These rulings go beyond procedural corrections. Federal courts have repeatedly held that such detention violates both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and have ordered immediate release as the appropriate remedy.

If someone you know has been detained by ICE after an arrest inside the United States, time is critical. Federal habeas corpus may allow a judge to order immediate release.

Call now for a confidential consultation

Key Legal Principle

When ICE arrests a noncitizen inside the United States, detention must comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and include a lawful, individualized custody determination. Courts have consistently rejected attempts to treat such individuals as “applicants for admission” under § 1225 to bypass these protections.

Recent Federal Court Victories

Southern District of New York

Federal judges in the Southern District of New York have repeatedly ordered immediate release in habeas petitions litigated by Musa-Obregón Law P.C.:

• Aguilar Jimenez v. Genalo (Mar. 6, 2026) – Release ordered within 24 hours; court held detention governed by § 1226(a) and violated due process

• Guarchaj Chox v. Genalo (Mar. 12, 2026) – Immediate release ordered; court relied on controlling precedent and enjoined future unlawful detention

• Abzun Villafuerte v. Genalo (Feb. 2, 2026) – Release within 24 hours; no lawful exercise of custody discretion

• Tambriz Ajtzalam v. Genalo (Jan. 20, 2026) – Same-day release following Government concession

• Sandoval Abzun v. Genalo (Jan. 13, 2026) – Immediate release; detention without custody determination violated due process

• Landaverde v. Genalo (Jan. 12, 2026) – Immediate release following Government concession

• Gutierrez Giron v. Genalo (Jan. 26, 2026) – Immediate release; unlawful detention under § 1225

• Ipina Hernandez v. Genalo (2026) – Immediate release; due process violation

• Rocano Once v. Genalo (Feb. 4, 2026) – Immediate release under controlling precedent

• Gomiss v. Francis (Jan. 2026) – Immediate release; Government acknowledged controlling law

• Cunas Hurtado v. Genalo (Dec. 2, 2025) – Immediate release of long-term resident unlawfully detained

Eastern District of New York

Courts in the Eastern District of New York have reached the same conclusion and ordered immediate release:

• Mas Guarchaj v. Genalo (Mar. 11, 2026) – Release ordered forthwith

• Terrero v. Tsoukaris (Mar. 4, 2026) – Immediate release; no lawful detention authority

• Encalada Pillco v. Genalo (Feb. 25, 2026) – Release ordered absent lawful custody determination

• Ccorihuaman v. Genalo (Feb. 6, 2026) – Immediate release under controlling precedent

• Hinestroza Arango v. Genalo (Dec. 16, 2025) – Immediate release; lack of lawful custody process

• Flores Aparicio v. Genalo (2026) – Immediate release; detention under § 1225 unlawful for interior arrest

District of New Jersey

Federal courts in New Jersey have likewise ordered immediate release in multiple cases:

• Tix Zapon v. Tsoukaris (Mar. 11, 2026) – Immediate release; court refused to convert unlawful detention to § 1226(a) and imposed injunctive protections

• Salaria v. Tsoukaris (Feb. 27, 2026) – Immediate release and permanent injunction against § 1225 detention

• Bautista Sanchez v. Bondi (Mar. 3, 2026) – Immediate release after failure to justify detention

• Penaloza Penalosa v. Bondi (Jan. 23, 2026) – Immediate release; § 1226(a) governs

• Albarran Aranda v. Bondi (Jan. 22, 2026) – Immediate release; improper use of § 1225

• Jagpreet Singh v. Tsoukaris (Feb. 20, 2026) – Immediate release; court addressed ICE noncompliance

Why Immediate Release Matters

While courts sometimes order bond hearings, those proceedings often fail to provide meaningful relief. Immigration judges frequently deny bond even in strong cases.

The decisions above are fundamentally different. In each, federal courts determined that detention itself was unlawful and ordered immediate release—the most direct and effective remedy for unconstitutional confinement.

These rulings:

• Recognize violations of federal law and due process

• Reject improper use of § 1225 for interior arrests

• Prevent continued unlawful detention

• In some cases, prohibit re-detention under the same unlawful theory

A Clear and Growing Judicial Consensus

Across multiple federal courts, one principle is now clear:

ICE cannot detain individuals arrested inside the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 to avoid the procedural protections required by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a).

When it does, federal courts have repeatedly intervened—and ordered release.

Contact Us

If you or a loved one has been detained by ICE following an arrest inside the United States, you may have a viable federal habeas claim.

Musa-Obregón Law P.C.
michael@musa-obregon.com or call 718-803-1000

Updated March 2026 – Based on recent federal court decisions.