Virginia Isabel Almonte Rojas v. Kenneth Genalo, N.Y.C. Director, Enforcement & Removal Operations, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: February 3, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-06543
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------x

VIRGINIA ISABEL ALMONTE ROJAS,

Petitioner, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 25-CV-6543 (EK) -against-

KENNETH GENALO, N.Y.C. DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT & REMOVAL OPERATIONS, IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE) et al.,

Respondents.

------------------------------------x ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge: Almonte Rojas petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Her petition asserts that Respondents are wrongfully detaining her under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A) and, accordingly, have denied her the bond determination to which she is entitled under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See Pet. ¶¶ 13-14, ECF No. 1. Having determined that this Court has jurisdiction over Almonte Rojas’s petition, we deny the petition on the merits. “Federal courts must determine that they have jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits.” Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439, (2007). A habeas petition is generally to be filed “in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), and Almonte Rojas is currently being detained at the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. Langlois Decl. ¶ 20, ECF No. 20-1. However, at the time Almonte Rojas filed her petition, she was being held at the Immigration & Customs Enforcement office in Central Islip, New York. See id. ¶ 18; Pet. Accordingly, this Court retains jurisdiction. See Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283,

306 (1944) (where “[d]istrict [c]ourt acquired jurisdiction . . . the removal of [petitioner] did not cause it to lose jurisdiction where a person in whose custody she [was] remain[ed] within the district”). Nonetheless, Almonte Rojas’ petition is denied on the merits. First, Respondents have produced evidence that Almonte Rojas in fact received an initial custody determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) — thereby negating the sole basis for Almonte Rojas’s petition. See Langlois Decl. Ex. C, ECF No. 20- 4; see generally Pet. Second, to the extent Almonte Rojas

wishes to challenge her initial custody determination, she must first exhaust the administrative remedies at her disposal. See, e.g., Castillo Lachapel v. Joyce, 786 F. Supp. 3d 860, 864 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (“A habeas petitioner must normally exhaust administrative remedies before seeking federal court intervention.”). And Almonte Rojas does not contest that she has never requested a bond hearing. Langlois Decl. ¶ 24; see 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1003.19, 1236.1(d) (outlining the administrative review process of which she can and should avail herself).1 Accordingly, Almonte Rojas’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee ERIC KOMITEE United State

s District Judge

D ated: February 3, 2026 Brooklyn, New Yo

r k

1 Almonte Rojas argues that exhaustion should be waived because her custody determination itself was illegitimate, having been made the day after her arrest. See generally Pet.’s Letter Dated January 7, 2026, ECF No. 21. But she cites no binding authority for that proposition.