Eastern District of New York • 1:26-cv-00856

#1

Feb 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filing fee $ 5, receipt number ANYEDC-19911061, filed by Pamela Bondi, Kristi Noem, Judith Almodovar, Raul Maldonado, Todd M. Lyons. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Goldman, Michael) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#2

Feb 13, 2026

This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#3

Feb 13, 2026

MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Md Tufael Islam Khan Shohag. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Goldman, Michael) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

Feb 13, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (KD)

Feb 13, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

#4

Feb 14, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Upon review of Petitioner Md Tufael Islam Khan Shohag's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. 1), it is hereby ordered that: 1.Respondents shall, by 6:00 p.m. on February 20, 2026, show cause in writing why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued and why Petitioner should not be immediately released. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If Respondents contend that Petitioner is detained under a statute other than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), their response must state what facts, if any, distinguish Petitioner's case from the vast majority of district court cases that have disagreed with Respondents' contention. See Barco Mercado v. Francis, F. Supp. 3d., No. 25-CV-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4, *1314 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (collecting cases); O.F.C. v. Almodovar, No. 25-CV-9816 (LJL), 2026 WL 74262, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2026) (explaining that courts have consistently found that § 1226(a) applies to noncitizens who entered without inspection and were later apprehended within the country).2. To preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling on the Petition, Respondents are restrained from removing Petitioner from the United States, until further order of this Court. See M.K. v. Joyce, No. 25-CV-1935 (JMF), 2025 WL 750599, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (collecting cases ordering same). 3. Furthermore, considering Petitioner's interest in participating in proceedings before this Court and maintaining adequate access to legal counsel, Respondents are restrained from transferring Petitioner to a facility outside of this District absent further order of this Court. See Samb v. Joyce, No. 25-CV-6374 (DEH) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2025) (Dkt. 3) (collecting cases ordering same); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (empowering courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 2/14/2026. (ABB) Electronic Service upon the US Attorneys Office re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Modified on 2/16/2026 to correct ECF filing event. (FA) (Entered: 02/16/2026)

#4

Feb 16, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Upon review of Petitioner Md Tufael Islam Khan Shohag's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. 1), it is hereby ordered that: 1.Respondents shall, by 6:00 p.m. on February 20, 2026, show cause in writing why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued and why Petitioner should not be immediately released. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If Respondents contend that Petitioner is detained under a statute other than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), their response must state what facts, if any, distinguish Petitioner's case from the vast majority of district court cases that have disagreed with Respondents' contention. See Barco Mercado v. Francis, — F. Supp. 3d. —, No. 25-CV-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4, *13–14 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (collecting cases); O.F.C. v. Almodovar, No. 25-CV-9816 (LJL), 2026 WL 74262, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2026) (explaining that courts have consistently found that § 1226(a) applies to noncitizens who entered without inspection and were later apprehended within the country).2. To preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling on the Petition, Respondents are restrained from removing Petitioner from the United States, until further order of this Court. See M.K. v. Joyce, No. 25-CV-1935 (JMF), 2025 WL 750599, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (collecting cases ordering same). 3. Furthermore, considering Petitioner's interest in participating in proceedings before this Court and maintaining adequate access to legal counsel, Respondents are restrained from transferring Petitioner to a facility outside of this District absent further order of this Court. See Samb v. Joyce, No. 25-CV-6374 (DEH) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2025) (Dkt. 3) (collecting cases ordering same); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (empowering courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 2/14/2026. (ABB) (Entered: 02/14/2026)

#5

Feb 20, 2026

Letter

#6

Feb 21, 2026

Letter

Mar 01, 2026

Memorandum & Opinion

Mar 01, 2026

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Respondents' 5 Response to the Court's Show-Cause Order. Although Respondents maintain that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), they provide no facts to support this position; nor do they contest the facts Petitioner has alleged. "Respondents' complete and utter failure to produce evidence supporting any ground to detain [petitioner] is reason alone to grant [his] Petition." Marisol P.Q. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-1055 (MJD/DJF), 2026 WL 376306, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, No. 26-CV-1055 (MJD/DJF), 2026 WL 468237 (D. Minn. Feb. 18, 2026). Even so, the Court finds that because Petitioner has lived in the United States continuously since 2024 and is currently being detained without individualized notice, (Pet., Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 4-5), his detention is contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and he must be released. Yin v. Maldonado, No. 26-CV-0103 (PKC), 2026 WL 295389, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2026) ("[A] non-citizen who is already in the country pending the outcome of removal proceedings is not 'seeking admission,' and therefore is not subject to Section 1225(b)(2)(A)'s mandatory detention."). The Court grants the petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Pet., Dkt. 1). Respondents are directed to release Petitioner from custody immediately and no later than within 24 hours of this Order. Respondents are further directed to return to Petitioner any and all funds or property seized from Petitioner at the time of his arrest. Respondents are directed to certify compliance with the Court's Order by filing a letter on the docket no later than 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, March 2, 2026. The Court further orders that Respondents may not administratively recharacterize the release granted by this Order as grounds to impose conditions or re-impose existing conditions in conjunction with release (including release on recognizance or similar instruments), without prior notice to and authorization from the Court, or absent a new and independently lawful custody decision properly executed under the law. Petitioner must not be re-detained by Respondents without notice and an opportunity to be heard at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decision maker, at which Respondents will have the burden of showing that Petitioner's re-detention is authorized under Section 1226(a). Petitioner's deadline to apply for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act is due within 30 days of a final judgment in this action, which, if Respondents do not appeal, is June 1, 2026. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment consistent with this Order and close this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/1/2026. (ABB) Modified on 3/3/2026 to correct Marisol case citation. (FA)

Mar 01, 2026

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Respondents' 5 Response to the Court's Show-Cause Order. Although Respondents maintain that Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), they provide no facts to support this position; nor do they contest the facts Petitioner has alleged. "Respondents' complete and utter failure to produce evidence supporting any ground to detain [petitioner] is reason alone to grant [his] Petition." Marisol P.Q. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-1055 (MJD/DJF), 2026 WL 468237 (D. Minn. Feb. 18, 2026), report and recommendation adopted as modified, No. 26-1055 (MJD/DJF), 2026 WL 468237 (D. Minn. Feb. 18, 2026). Even so, the Court finds that because Petitioner has lived in the United States continuously since 2024 and is currently being detained without individualized notice, (Pet., Dkt. 1, ¶ 4–5), his detention is contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and he must be released. Yin v. Maldonado, No. 26-CV-0103 (PKC), 2026 WL 295389, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2026) ("[A] non-citizen who is already in the country pending the outcome of removal proceedings is not 'seeking admission,' and therefore is not subject to Section 1225(b)(2)(A)'s mandatory detention."). The Court grants the petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Pet., Dkt. 1). Respondents are directed to release Petitioner from custody immediately and no later than within 24 hours of this Order. Respondents are further directed to return to Petitioner any and all funds or property seized from Petitioner at the time of his arrest. Respondents are directed to certify compliance with the Courts Order by filing a letter on the docket no later than 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, March 2, 2026. The Court further orders that Respondents may not administratively recharacterize the release granted by this Order as grounds to impose conditions or re-impose existing conditions in conjunction with release (including release on recognizance or similar instruments), without prior notice to and authorization from the Court, or absent a new and independently lawful custody decision properly executed under the law. Petitioner must not be re-detained by Respondents without notice and an opportunity to be heard at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, at which Respondents will have the burden of showing that Petitioners re-detention is authorized under Section 1226(a). Petitioner's deadline to apply for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act is due within 30 days of a final judgment in this action, which, if Respondents do not appeal, is June 1, 2026. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment consistent with this Order and close this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/1/2026. (ABB)

#7

Mar 02, 2026

Letter

#8

Mar 08, 2026

MOTION for Attorney Fees by Md Tufael Islam Khan Shohag. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Goldman, Michael) (Entered: 03/08/2026)

#9

Mar 10, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Md Tufael Islam Khan Shohag against Judith Almodovar, Kristi Noem, Pamela Bondi, Raul Maldonado, Todd M. Lyons:ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted; Respondents are directed to release Petitioner from custody immediately and no later than within 24 hours of this Order; Respondents are further directed to return to Petitioner any and all funds or property seized from Petitioner at the time of his arrest; Respondents may not administratively recharacterize the release granted by this Order as grounds to impose conditions or re-impose existing conditions in conjunction with release (including release on recognizance or similar instruments), without prior notice to and authorization from the Court, or absent a new and independently lawful custody decision properly executed under the law; and Petitioner must not be re-detained by Respondents without notice and an opportunity to be heard at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, at which Respondents will have the burden of showing that Petitioners re-detention is authorized under Section 1226(a). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/4/2026. (MB) (Entered: 03/10/2026)

Mar 11, 2026

ORDER: The Court is receipt of Petitioner's 8 Motion for Attorneys' Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). The Court will "hold Petitioner's application for fees in abeyance until the judgment in this case becomes final under the EAJA," on May 4, 2026, Osuna v. Francis, No. 25-CV-9823, 2026 WL 456891, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2026) (explaining that the government has 60 days to appeal a judgment before it becomes final). If the government does not file an appeal within 60 days of the entry of judgment, it shall file a response to Petitioner's Motion by May 30, 2026. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 3/11/2026. (ABB)

Mar 11, 2026

Order(Other)