Jimenez v. Shanahan (May 13, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Henri Giovani Morales Jimenez v. Christopher Shanahan
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
May 13, 2026
Disposition
Petition Denied
Majority
And Order Cogan (J.) (unanimous Court)
HENRI GIOVANI MORALES JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v...., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1309291Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, E.D. New York.HENRI GIOVANI MORALESJIMENEZ, Petitioner,v.CHRISTOPHER SHANAHAN, Field OfficeDirector; and U.S. IMMIGRATION ANDCUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondents.26-cv-1501 (BMC)|Filed 05/13/2026MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDERCOGAN, District Judge.*1 Petitioner Henri Giovani Morales Jimenez, a Hondurannational, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 22 U.S.C. §2241, ordering his immediate release from U.S. Immigrationand Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detention, or providinghim with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), andenjoining ICE from re-detaining him absent lawful authority.For the following reasons, the petition is denied.BACKGROUNDPetitioner first entered the United States without inspection onApril 7, 2018. Customs and Border Protection picked him upthat day, issued him an expedited removal order the followingday, and removed him from the country on June 4, 2018.Petitioner entered the United States without inspection againon July 25, 2018. He was apprehended, processed as aReinstatement of Prior Order Removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1231, and prosecuted and convicted for illegal entry pursuantto § 1325. He was removed from the country on August 6,2018.Petitioner entered the United States a third time withoutinspection on November 18, 2018. He was apprehended,processed as a Reinstatement of Prior Order Removalpursuant to § 1231, and prosecuted and convicted for illegalre-entry pursuant to § 1326. He was removed from the countryon January 30, 2019.At an unknown time, petitioner entered the United States afourth time without inspection. He remained undetected byICE until March 13, 2026. It is not clear from either party'ssubmissions what exactly happened on that date. Respondentssay only that petitioner was arrested – not where or underwhat circumstances – by Long Island Fugitive Operations,with assistance from Homeland Security Investigations andthe IRS, pursuant to a Form I-205 administrative removalwarrant. Petitioner indicates for the first time in his reply briefthat he was apprehended during a traffic stop.In any event, ICE then served petitioner with a notice ofintent to reinstate his initial removal order from April 8,2018. Petitioner signed the notice, acknowledging receipt anddeclining to make a statement. He also informed officersthat he did not have a fear of returning to Honduras.Accordingly, ICE determined that petitioner was subject toremoval through reinstatement of his prior removal order, inaccordance with § 1231(a)(5).Petitioner was initially detained at the Nassau CountyCorrectional Center before being transferred to Delaney Hallin New Jersey. On March 16, 2026, after this case wasinitiated, the Court ordered respondents to transfer petitionerback to this District. To the Court's knowledge, petitioneris currently being held at Metropolitan Detention Center inBrooklyn, New York.DISCUSSIONI. Legal StandardHabeas corpus “stands as a safeguard against imprisonment ofthose held in violation of the law.” Harrington v. Richter, 562U.S. 86, 91 (2011); see also Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382,393 (2d Cir. 2025). The Court may issue a writ under Section2241 “whenever a petitioner is ‘in custody in violation ofthe Constitution or law or treaties of the United States.’ ”Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 140 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)). “Federal courts have jurisdiction tohear habeas corpus claims by non-citizens challenging theconstitutionality of their detention.” Lopez v. Sessions, No.18-cv-4189, 2018 WL 2932726, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 12,2018) (citing Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516-17 (2003)).
HENRI GIOVANI MORALES JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v...., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2II. Analysis*2 Petitioner makes drastically different arguments betweenhis petition and his reply brief. The Court will address eachin turn.Petitioner raises three principal arguments in his petition:(1) the proceedings by which he was previously orderedremoved did not comport with due process because he didnot have a meaningful opportunity to present or defend hisasylum claim; (2) his detention violates his substantive dueprocess rights because it stifles his liberty interests in familyintegrity and parental care, as he is unable to care for hisU.S. citizen child who has serious medical needs; and (3) hisprolonged detention without an individualized review (i.e.,bond hearing) violates procedural due process.1Each of these arguments is unavailing. With respect to thefirst argument, Congress has barred the use of habeas petitionsto challenge removal proceedings in district court, even“indirectly.” See Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52, 54-55(2d Cir. 2011); see also P.L. v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't,No. 19-cv-01336, 2019 WL 2568648, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June21, 2019) (collecting cases). As the Real ID Act of 2005provides,[j]udicial review of all questions of law and fact,including interpretation and application of constitutionaland statutory provisions, arising from any action taken orproceeding brought to remove an alien from the UnitedStates under this subchapter shall be available only injudicial review of a final order under this section.§ 1252(b)(9). And, as the Act further provides,“[n]otwithstanding ... section 2241 of Title 28, or any otherhabeas corpus provision, ... a petition for review filed withan appropriate court of appeals in accordance with thissection shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicialreview of an order of removal.” § 1252(a)(5). Thus, tochallenge “questions of law and fact” arising out of removalproceedings, there must be a final order of removal, and thecourts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction over review offinal orders of removal.2 Ruiz-Martinez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d102, 105 (2d Cir. 2008).*3 Petitioner's second and third arguments both concern theconstitutionality of his detention under § 1226. But petitioneris not being detained under that statute. Rather, because heis subject to a final removal order, his detention falls under§ 1231. See Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 542(2021) (applying § 1231 detention scheme to noncitizenssubject to reinstated orders of removal under § 1231(a)(5));Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 145 (2d Cir. 2003). This alsomeans that petitioner is not entitled to a bond hearing. SeeGuzman Chavez, 594 U.S. at 526. Petitioner's removal clockbegan on March 13, 2026 – the date that his removal orderwas reinstated, see Khemlal v. Shanahan, No. 14-cv-5186,2014 WL 5020596, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2014) – whichmeans that his detention still falls within the 90-day removalperiod. Therefore, petitioner has no basis under § 1231 (or §1226) to challenge the fact of his detention, the reasons forhis detention, or the denial of a bond hearing.3Petitioner effectively abandons these arguments in his replybrief. He argues instead that the stop and arrest precipitatinghis current detention violated his Fourth Amendment rights,as there was no judicial warrant, no probable cause, andno explanation of why petitioner's vehicle was stopped.Accordingly, the evidence obtained from his arrest – thatis, any evidence proving his non-citizenship – must besuppressed, and he must be released from detention.The argument is defective for at least two reasons. First, newarguments cannot be raised in a reply brief, for the obviousreason (among others) that the opposing party has not hadthe opportunity to address them. Connecticut Bar Ass'n v.United States, 620 F.3d 81, 91 n.13 (2d Cir. 2010); Pineda v.Shanahan, 258 F. Supp. 3d 372, 380 n.11 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).Neither respondents nor the Court have to consider a movingtarget. Second, insofar as the relief that petitioner seeks isimmediate release from custody, petitioner's arguments aboutthe stop and arrest constitute an indirect challenge to hisorder of removal, meaning a challenge that the Court isjurisdictionally barred from reviewing. See Delgado, 643F.3d at 54-55 (2d Cir. 2011); Villatoro v. Shanahan, No. 26-cv-1210, 2026 WL 948297, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2026)(holding that challenge to legality of the stop, arrest, anddetention that preceded the reinstatement of the petitioner'sorder of removal was an indirect challenge to the order ofremoval and was thus barred from district court review).As a final matter, the Court must note that petitioner's counselhas not served him well. She glazed over the facts of the case.She offered broad-ranging propositions without case support.When she did reference cases, she provided only their names– no citations. And she relied on an abrogated Supreme Courtcase and at least one nonexistent case. It was always going tobe difficult for petitioner to prevail, but at least he would'vehad the benefit of liberal construction had he proceeded pro
HENRI GIOVANI MORALES JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v...., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3se. Individuals in petitioner's position need zealous advocates,not “cut-and-paste lawyering.” Tuba Pulla v. Lyons, No. 1:26-cv-2682, 2026 WL 906251, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2026).CONCLUSION*4 For the reasons set forth above, the habeas petition isdenied.SO ORDERED.Dated: Brooklyn, New YorkMay 12, 2026All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 1309291Footnotes1Petitioner also argues, in only conclusory terms, that his detention violates the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”)and the “Flores Settlement.” The TVPA has no bearing on the lawfulness of petitioner's detention, as the relevant portionsapply only to individuals under the age of 18, and petitioner was 35 when last taken into custody. See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A) (under the TVPA, unaccompanied alien children in the custody of Health and Human Services must be “promptlyplaced in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child”); 6 U.S.C. § 279 (defining “unaccompaniedalien child” as an individual who, among other things, “has not attained 18 years of age”). The same goes for the FloresSettlement. See Mendez Ramirez v. Decker, 612 F. Supp. 3d 200, 205 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (explaining that the FloresSettlement arose out of a lawsuit challenging the policies of the INS regarding the release of detained minors, and defined“minor” as “any person under the age of eighteen (18) years who is detained in the legal custody of the INS” and itssuccessors).2However, not even a court of appeals could hear this challenge because petitioner is subject to a reinstated order ofremoval. See § 1231(a)(5) (“If the Attorney General finds that an alien has reentered the United States illegally afterhaving been removed ... under an order of removal, the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and isnot subject to being reopened or reviewed, the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter,and the alien shall be removed under the prior order at any time after the reentry.”); Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d141 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[T]he reinstatement of removal statute expressly prohibits us from giving petitioner a second bite atthe apple” to challenge his underlying deportation proceeding.).3The Court cannot make much of petitioner's statement about caring for his U.S. citizen child because petitioner does notprovide any explanation in support. In any case, petitioner fails to allege a substantive due process violation. See Velezv. Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 93 (2d Cir. 2005) (A substantive due process claim “must allege governmental conduct that ‘is soegregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience.’ ” (Quoting Cty. of Sacramentov. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 847 n.8 (1998))).End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access