Kamel v. Joyce
- James Oetken
- 1:25-cv-06249
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kamel v. Joyce, Judge Oetken temporarily barred removal while indicating New Jersey may be the proper venue.
Mariam Kamel, who was protected from removal from the United States pending further court order, and the named government respondents, who were prohibited from removing her during that period.
What happened
In Kamel v. Joyce, Mariam Kamel filed a petition asking for relief from alleged unlawful immigration custody under federal law. She said she was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on July 28, 2025, and held at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan.
The court said government information indicated that Kamel was in Newark, New Jersey, when she filed the case. Based on that information and earlier decisions, the court said the federal court in New Jersey likely was the proper venue. The court also scheduled a telephone conference.
Judge Oetken ordered the respondents not to remove Kamel from the United States unless this court or a court receiving the case later ordered otherwise. The order replaced the temporary restraining order issued the previous day; it did not state a final decision on the legality of Kamel’s detention or other claims.
The detailed version
- Kamel v. Joyce · No. 1:25-cv-06249
- James Oetken
- July 31, 2025
Background
Mariam Kamel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on July 30, 2025. A petition under that statute can ask a federal court to review whether a person’s custody is lawful. Kamel alleged that she was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on July 28, 2025, and held at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan in violation of federal statutory and constitutional rights.
The respondents are William P. Joyce, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of New York, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.
Venue and temporary order
The court stated that government representations suggested Kamel was in Newark, New Jersey, when she filed the petition. Relying on the reasons discussed in Ozturk v. Hyde and Judge Furman’s opinion in Khalil v. Joyce, the court said it appeared likely that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, rather than the Southern District of New York, was the proper venue.
The court had issued a temporary restraining order on July 30, 2025, and scheduled a hearing for July 31. This order superseded and replaced that earlier temporary restraining order. The court changed the hearing to a telephone conference.
Ruling
Pending further order from the Southern District of New York or a court receiving the case, the court restrained and enjoined the respondents from removing Kamel from the United States. The opinion did not state that the case had been transferred, and it did not decide the merits of Kamel’s detention or other asserted rights.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.