Western District of New York • 6:26-cv-06160

#1

Feb 06, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5710059.), filed by Ahmed Bamba. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I-213, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Zaiman, Grace) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

Feb 09, 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. (RE)

Feb 09, 2026

Case Assigned to Hon. Meredith A. Vacca. Notification to Chambers of on-line civil case opening. (RE)

#2

Feb 13, 2026

TEXT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Petitioner, a citizen of Morocco, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on February 6, 2026, while being held as a civil immigration detainee at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443-47 (2004). Petitioner seeks, among other things, a writ of habeas corpus requiring that Respondents release him or provide him with a constitutionally sound bond hearing. ECF No. 1.28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that "[a] court entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted." Further, in light of the Court's prior orders on this issue, including its decision granting relief in Da Cunha v. Freden et al., 25-CV-6532-MAV, 2025 WL 3280575 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025), Respondents are hereby:ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of this order why the Petitioner's requested relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should not be granted, including through citations to supporting authority and applicable sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, supplemented as possible by copies of the Notice to Appear served on Petitioner, the warrant to arrest Petitioner, any other relevant exhibits helpful to resolution of this Petition, and a supporting declaration as necessary; and it is further, ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forthwith serve a copy of the Petition, ECF No. 1, and a copy of this text 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; and it is furtherORDERED that Petitioner shall have 7 days after service of Respondents' return to file a written response.Following receipt of the parties' papers, the Court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. See Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. In that regard, the Court observes that 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that "[u]nless the application for the writ and the return present only issues of law, the person to whom the writ is directed shall be required to produce at the hearing the body of the person detained," as "the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set forth in the return or allege any other material facts." Accordingly, to facilitate the expeditious resolution of this matter, it is furtherORDERED that Respondents refrain from transferring Petitioner out of the United States until after the Court determines whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 2/13/2026. (JCL)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 17, 2026

Clerk regenerated 2 Text Order and emailed copy of 1 Petition to the United States Attorney's Office, Western District of New York at USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov. (JHF)

#3

Feb 18, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip L. Rhoney (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#4

Feb 18, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order, filed by Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip L. Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) Modified docket text to remove extra comas on 2/18/2026 (RE). (Entered: 02/18/2026)

#5

Feb 19, 2026

TEXT ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Respondents' return to the Court's Text Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 4. 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. 4. 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 Text Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 2. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 02/19/2026. (JCL) Modified on 2/19/2026 to add the identifier, "TEXT ORDER:" (JCL). (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#6

Mar 05, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING PETITION IN PART. On February 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a verified 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.Respondents filed a response on February 18, 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. 6. 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 this case, Petitioner entered without inspection on or about June 8, 2023, was detained shortly thereafter, entered into removal proceedings, and then released. ECF No. 1 Paras. 1-3. While working as a delivery driver on October 14, 2025, Petitioner was stopped by immigration officials, arrested, and detained through the present. Id. at Para. 5. Da Cunha did not involve a petitioner who had previously been released following an encounter soon after entry with immigration officials. See Da Cunha, 2025 WL 3280575, at *2 (Until the September 26[, 2025] detention, Petitioner had never been detained or held in custody by U.S. immigration officials....). Respondents nonetheless argued that the facts of this case squarely implicate a legal issue that this Court has ruled on previously in Da Cunha. The Court accepts Respondents' position as argued, and, for that reason, GRANTS the petition to the extent of a bond hearing and hereby ORDERS that Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an initial bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. 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) ("It is 'simply not [the Court's] job, at least in a counseled case[,]' to develop arguments on [a party]'s behalf." (quoting Sioson v. Knights of Columbus, 303 F.3d 458, 460 (2d Cir. 2002))).For similar reasons, the Court ORDERS 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)). The Court has made clear in prior cases, including Mahmodi et al v Marich et al, No. 25-CV-6762-MAV, 2026 WL 113473, at *4-9 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2026), that a case-specific analysis under the factors identified in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is required to shift the burden of an initial bond hearing under § 1226(a) on the government. Petitioner made no such argument. See ECF No. 1 Para. 63; ECF No. 5 (relying on briefing submitted in petition on the issue of the appropriate allocation of the burden in any bond hearing); OBrien, 2025 WL 1519411, at *27.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 17 days from the date of this Order, 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 the restriction on Petitioner's transfer outside of the United States is hereby lifted because the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 03/05/2026. (JCL)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 03/05/2026)