Ariza v. Genalo

Background

Victor Ardila Ariza filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure used to challenge a person’s custody. Judge Ronnie Abrams issued this order in her capacity as the Part I judge. The order states that Judge Vargas would retain jurisdiction over the case.

Temporary restrictions

To preserve the court’s ability to decide the petition, the court ordered that Ardila Ariza not be removed from the United States unless the court later orders otherwise. The court also ordered that the respondents not transfer him unless the transfer is to a facility in the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, or the District of New Jersey, unless the court later orders otherwise. The court cited other decisions involving temporary restrictions on removal or transfer of people seeking custody-related relief.

Information required from respondents

Within two business days, the respondents must file a letter stating:

- whether Ardila Ariza 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 there; - his immigration identification number, current detention location, and a contact person who can help counsel reach him; - whether the immigration agency received a copy of the order; - the statutory provisions the respondents rely on to detain him; - if detention is based on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), whether the case can be distinguished from a cited appellate decision and whether the respondents would agree to issuance of the requested court order, while preserving their arguments for appeal; - a copy of any final removal order; and - information about the status of any pending proceedings before the Department of Homeland Security or the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Further proceedings and disposition

The parties were directed to appear for a case-management conference before Judge Vargas on July 22, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. They must submit a joint letter by noon on July 21 addressing whether the conference is necessary and proposing how to proceed with the petition. Ardila Ariza’s counsel must serve the respondents with the petition, supporting papers, and this order, then file proof of service. The respondents’ counsel must enter notices of appearance.

This was an interim procedural order. Judge Abrams did not grant or deny the petition and did not decide the merits of Ardila Ariza’s detention challenge.