Moreta Ventura v. Genalo
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-05329
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ariel Marino Moreta Ventura v. Genalo, Judge Subramanian barred removal and transfer while setting a habeas hearing.
Ariel Marino Moreta Ventura, the named respondents, and their counsel. Ventura may not be removed from the United States or transferred outside the Southern District of New York unless the court orders otherwise.
What happened
In Ariel Marino Moreta Ventura v. Genalo, the court received Ventura’s petition asking for a court order concerning his custody or removal, although the opinion does not describe the petition’s claims.
To preserve its authority to decide the petition, the court ordered that Ventura not be removed from the United States or transferred outside the Southern District of New York unless the court later orders otherwise. It also scheduled a hearing for July 1, 2025, and directed the parties to discuss the disputed issues and a possible briefing schedule.
Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order on June 27, 2025. The order does not decide the merits of Ventura’s petition; it sets temporary case-management and jurisdiction-preserving measures while the petition remains pending.
The detailed version
- Moreta Ventura v. Genalo · No. 1:25-cv-05329
- Subramanian
- June 30, 2025
Background
The court received petitioner Ariel Marino Moreta Ventura’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion does not explain the factual or legal grounds of the petition.
Order
The court ordered that Ventura must not be removed from the United States unless and until the court orders otherwise. It also ordered that Ventura must not be transferred outside the Southern District of New York unless and until the court orders otherwise. The court explained that these restrictions were intended to preserve its jurisdiction—the court’s authority to decide the pending petition.
The court scheduled a hearing on the petition for 2:00 p.m. on July 1, 2025, in Courtroom 15A at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. It directed the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint letter identifying the disputed issues and proposing a briefing schedule, if needed. Ventura’s counsel was directed to serve the respondents with the petition, supporting papers, and the order, and to file proof of service. Counsel for the respondents was directed to promptly file notices of appearance.
Disposition and Classification
Judge Arun Subramanian issued an interim order preserving the court’s ability to decide the petition and setting a hearing. The order does not grant or deny the petition and does not reach its merits. It is therefore a procedural order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.