Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00280

#1

Feb 19, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number APAWDC-9374978), filed by JOSE NICOLAS MAYANCELA-QUINDI. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Saleem, Mohammad) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#2

Feb 19, 2026

First MOTION for attorney Mohammad Akif Saleem to Appear Pro Hac Vice, on behalf of Petitioner JOSE NICOLAS MAYANCELA-QUINDI (Filing fee $70, Receipt # APAWDC-9375112) by JOSE NICOLAS MAYANCELA-QUINDI. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of Mohammad Saleem, Esq., # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A - NYS CGS, # 3 Proposed Order granting PHV Motion) (Saleem, Mohammad) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#3

Feb 19, 2026

Amended PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number APAWDC-9376245), filed by JOSE NICOLAS MAYANCELA-QUINDI. (Saleem, Mohammad) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#4

Feb 19, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Order to Show Cause by JOSE NICOLAS MAYANCELA-QUINDI. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in support of Emergency Order to Show Cause, # 2 Declaration in support of Emergency Order to Show Cause, # 3 Exhibit "A" - Bond approval notice, # 4 Exhibit "B" - I-130 Approval Notice) (Saleem, Mohammad). Added MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order on 2/19/2026 (dmh) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

Feb 19, 2026

Judge Stephanie L. Haines added. (map)

#5

Feb 20, 2026

Order on 4 Emergency Motion for Order to Show Cause/Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order ("the Motion"). Petitioner was detained on or about December 8, 2025, by U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement ("ICE") and immigration proceedings were commenced on or about the same day. Petitioner is the subject of a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231. On January 7, 2026, Petitioner filed an Application for Asylum and for withholding removal which to the Court's knowledge has not been fully adjudicated. It is also the understanding of the Court that Petitioner was granted bond by an immigration judge on or around January 8, 2026, which is pending appeal by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). There is also a pending application for military parole. Petitioner has filed the Motion because he is concerned with the swiftness with which DHS is executing his order of removal before he can fully adjudicate all legal options. Petitioner requests this Court to enjoin Respondents from transferring him from his current detention center during the pendency of this case for any reason including for purposes of deportation; to stay his execution of removal; to schedule a bond hearing; and to order Petitioner's release from ICE custody. Petitioner has not met the threshold requirements under Rule 65, and therefore, the Motion is DENIED. Furthermore, the remedies which Petitioner seeks are not within the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court lacks authority to grant that relief as the places of detention for aliens pending removal is left to the discretion of the Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1). See also Sinclair v. Atty Gen., 198 F. Appx 222 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006). Additionally, Petitioner's request for immediate release goes beyond the "limited nature of a [T.R.O.]" and instead requests "mandatory, affirmative relief[,]" which may not be afforded via a T.R.O. Hope v. Warden York County Prison (Hope I), 956 F.3d 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2020) (finding that where the district court purported to enter an ex parte T.R.O. but directed the release of twenty petitioners, the "relief altered the status quo, exceeding the temporary and limited nature of a [T.R.O.]") (citing Granny Goose Foods Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9), 1252(g), and the recent Third Circuit decision in Khalil v. President, United States, No. 25-2162, 2026 WL 111933, at *1 (3d Cir. Jan. 15, 2026) (Our conclusion about habeas jurisdiction requires us to answer a second question: Did the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) strip the New Jersey District Court of subject matter jurisdiction? It did. Because the INA channels [j]udicial review of all questions of law arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States into a single petition for review filed with a federal court of appeals, we hold that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Khalil's removal proceedings 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)). See Calla-Collado v. Attorney General of U.S., 663 F.3d 680, 685 (3d Cir. 2011) ("Congress has vested the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") with authority to enforce the nation's immigration laws.). As to ordering a bond hearing, it was reported that Petitioner recently had a bond hearing and was granted bond. Furthermore, Petitioner has not been detained for greater than the presumptive six months under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court decided that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), the post-removal-period statute, authorizes the Government to detain a removable alien only for a period reasonably necessary to secure the alien's removal, rather than indefinitely beyond the removal period. 533 U.S. at 682 (emphasis in original). The Zadvydas Court prescribed the presumptively reasonable time period as six months. Id. at 701. Finally, Petitioner requests an order requiring Respondents to show cause why the 2 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that "[t]he writ, or order to show cause... shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed." Courts within this Circuit have found that Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Proceedings ("Habeas Rules"), applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b) of the Habeas Rules, provides more flexible time limits for ordering an answer and supersedes the time limits of § 2243 to the extent there is a conflict. See Alvierez v. Bondi et al., Civil Action No. 26-532 (JXN), 2026 WL 146013, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2026)(collecting cases). This Court agrees. Accordingly, in light of the Court's Case Management Order to issue forthwith requiring Respondents to respond to the Petition within 30 days of service, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 2/20/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (cag) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#6

Feb 20, 2026

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Mohammad Akif Saleem to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 2/20/2026. (dlg) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#7

Feb 20, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: The Court orders as follows: 1. Service. Petitioners counsel shall serve Respondents with a copy of this order and the Petition via a single e-mail at: usapaw.civ.imm.2241.moshannon@usdoj.gov. The subject line of the email shall contain the case caption and case number of this case. If the Petition contains voluminous exhibits, they need not be emailed. The email service shall be deemed sufficient to accomplish formal service of the Petition. No other documents, pleadings, or motions may be emailed to this email address. 2. Certificate of compliance of service. Upon completion of service via e-mail as reflected in Paragraph 1, Petitioner's counsel shall file a notice of compliance, certifying the date and time of service. 3. Respondents' counsel notice of appearances. Counsel for Respondents shall file a notice of appearance within 3 days of the filing of Petitioner's Certificate of Compliance of Service. 4. Respondents' responses to the petition. Respondents shall file any responses or answers to the petition within 30 days of the date of service. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 2/20/2026. (dlg) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

Feb 20, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 4 Emergency MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. ERROR: The attached briefs in support should have been filed as separate documents using the Brief in Support of Motion event. CORRECTION FOR FUTURE FILINGS: Attorney advised that in the future all documents of that nature are to be filed separately. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FILING AT ISSUE. (ert)

Feb 20, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO AND Order on Motion to Show Cause