Western District of New York • 6:26-cv-06068

#1

Jan 17, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5686713.), filed by Luciano Munoz Huerta. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A - Notice to Appear, # 3 Exhibit B - I-286, # 4 Exhibit C - Bond Order from 2018, # 5 Exhibit D - Bond Denial)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 01/17/2026)

#2

Jan 17, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order to prevent movement of petitioner outside of jurisdiction and to order immediate release by Luciano Munoz Huerta. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Notice to Appear, # 2 Exhibit B - I-286, # 3 Exhibit C - Bond Order from 2018, # 4 Exhibit D - Bond Denial)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 01/17/2026)

Jan 17, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Meredith A. Vacca. Notification to chambers of online civil opening. (LB)

Jan 20, 2026

Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge: A United States Magistrate of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form (AO-85) is available for download at http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/forms. (DMK)

#3

Jan 23, 2026

ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO; setting Response/Reply dates. The Respondents shall refrain from transporting Petitioner out of the United States until after the Court determines whether and evidentiary hearing is warranted. The Clerk's Office is directed to serve a copy of 1 Petition and this Order electronically via a Notice of Electronic Filing to the United States Attorney's Office, Western District of New York at USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 1/22/26. (JHF) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

Jan 23, 2026

Clerk emailed copy of 1 Petition to the United States Attorney's Office, Western District of New York at USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov. (JHF)

#4

Jan 24, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 01/24/2026)

#5

Jan 29, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 3 Order on Motion for TRO,, filed by Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

#6

Jan 30, 2026

TEXT ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Respondents' return to the Court's Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 5. The return concedes that this case shares a common question of law with the Court's decision in Da Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-CV-6532-MAV, 2025 WL 3280575 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025), and that the Court's resolution of the question in Da Cunha controls the results in the instant case should the Court adhere to its prior reasoning. ECF No. 5. Petitioner may notify the Court at his earliest opportunity that he does not intend to submit a reply, and the Court will consider the matter submitted on the papers and proceed to a review of the merits. If Petitioner desires to submit a written reply, he must do so within 7 days of the date of service of Respondents' return, as set forth in the Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 3. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 1/30/2026. (MVP) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#7

Feb 02, 2026

Letter filed by Luciano Munoz Huerta in response to Text Order at Doc. 6. (Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 02/02/2026)

#8

Feb 03, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On January 17, 2026, Petitioner filed a verified emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing, inter alia, that his detention is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), as he has not been afforded an individualized bond hearing by an Immigration Judge. ECF No. 1. The Court ordered that Respondents show cause within 14 days as to why the petition should not be granted. ECF No. 3.Respondents filed a response on January 29, 2026, conceding that this case shared a common question of law with the Court's decision in Da Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-CV-6532-MAV, 2025 WL 3280575 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025), and that the Court's resolution of the question in Da Cunha controlled the results in the instant case should the Court adhere to its prior reasoning. ECF No. 5. In Da Cunha, the Court considered whether a petitioner who had been present in the country for a period of years and was not actively seeking lawful entry through inspection by an immigration officer was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The Court found that the petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was therefore entitled to an initial bond hearing under existing federal regulations. Da Cunha, 2025 WL 3280575, at *7. In reply, Petitioner confirms that the matter is ripe for a decision on the merits, acknowledging that the Court's prior decisions control the outcome of the instant case should the Court adhere to them. Specifically, as to the allocation of the burden of proof at the bond hearing, Petitioner "agrees that [Mahmodi v. Marich, No.25-CV-6762-MAV, 2026 WL 113473 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2026)] controls" and does not argue that the relevant facts of this case warrant a different outcome. See Mahmodi, 2026 WL 113473 at *39 (concluding that the allocation of the burden of proof at an alien's bond hearing requires the application of the three-factor test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) to the circumstances of each particular case). Because Petitioner does not contest this issue, the Court declines to rule on it, as it would require a case specific analysis of the factors identified in Mathews. See, e.g., O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, No. 5:22-CV-948 (MAD/TWD), 2025 WL 1519411, at *27 (N.D.N.Y. May 27, 2025) (quoting Sioson v. Knights of Columbus, 303 F.3d 458, 460 (2d Cir. 2002)) ("It is 'simply not [the Court's] job, at least in a counseled case[,]' to develop arguments on [Petitioner]'s behalf.").As noted above, Respondents concede that the facts of this case squarely implicate a legal issue that this Court has ruled on previously. The Court finds that its reasoning in Da Cunha applies to the instant matter, and that the statutory basis for Petitioner's detention is 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED to the extent that Respondents are hereby ORDERED to provide Petitioner with an initial bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. Furthermore, the Court directs that the initial bond hearing shall be provided "as established by existing federal regulations." Da Cunha, 2025 WL 3280575, at *7 (quoting Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)).It is further ORDERED that if such bond hearing is not conducted within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Petitioner shall be released from custody; and it is furtherORDERED that Respondents shall file a status report no later than February 17, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has either been granted a bond hearing within ten (10) days or released from custody in compliance with this Order; and it is furtherORDERED that because the instant Order resolves this matter, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted, and the restriction on Petitioner's transfer outside of the United States is hereby lifted.The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and close the case.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 2/3/2026. (MVP)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 02/03/2026)

#9

Feb 04, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Luciano Munoz Huerta against Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney, Tammy Marich, Todd Lyons. Signed by Mary C. Loewenguth, Clerk of Court on 2/4/2026. (DMK) (Entered: 02/04/2026)