Quispe-Sulcaray v. Noem
Pedro Eugenio Quispe-Sulcaray v. Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S Department of Homeland Security; Ladeon Francis, in his official capacity as Acting Director, New York Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and Pam Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:25-cv-09908
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Quispe-Sulcaray v. Noem, Judge Caproni ordered answers and temporarily barred removal or transfer while addressing Quispe-Sulcaray’s detention petition.
Pedro Eugenio Quispe-Sulcaray, who was detained and subject to possible removal or transfer, and the government respondents, who had to provide information, produce him at the conference, and comply with the temporary restrictions.
What happened
Pedro Eugenio Quispe-Sulcaray filed a petition challenging his immigration detention under a federal law that allows courts to review detention. The court’s order did not decide whether his detention was lawful.
Judge Caproni ordered the government respondents to provide information about Quispe-Sulcaray’s location when he filed the petition, his detention, the claimed legal authority for detention, any removal order, and related immigration proceedings. The respondents also had to produce him at a December 1, 2025, case-management conference.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that Quispe-Sulcaray not be removed from the United States while the petition was pending unless the court later allowed it. She also barred his transfer except to facilities in the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, or District of New Jersey, unless the court ordered otherwise.
The detailed version
- Quispe-Sulcaray v. Noem · No. 1:25-cv-09908
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 26, 2025
Background
Pedro Eugenio Quispe-Sulcaray filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a law that permits a federal court to review certain forms of detention. The opinion does not decide the petition’s underlying claims or determine whether his detention was lawful.
Information Ordered
The court ordered the respondents to file a letter by November 28, 2025, stating:
- whether Quispe-Sulcaray was in the Southern District of New York when he filed the petition and, if not, where he was and whether the case should be transferred; - his immigration identification number and current detention facility; - the statutes the respondents relied on as authority to detain him; - any final removal order; and - the procedural status of any pending proceedings before the Department of Homeland Security or the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
The court also scheduled a case-management conference for December 1, 2025, and ordered the respondents to produce Quispe-Sulcaray at the conference.
Temporary Restrictions
To preserve its ability to decide the petition, the court ordered that Quispe-Sulcaray not be removed from the United States without further court approval. The court also ordered that he not be transferred except to a facility in the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, or District of New Jersey, unless the court later ordered otherwise.
Disposition
This was an order requiring the respondents to answer and temporarily restricting removal and transfer while the petition proceeded. It did not grant or deny the petition on its merits. Judge Valerie Caproni also directed the Clerk of Court to notify the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office and mail a copy of the order to Quispe-Sulcaray’s attorney.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.