Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-00316

#1

Feb 19, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5724248.), filed by Jose Luis Fernandez Garcia. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#2

Feb 20, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jose Luis Fernandez Garcia To maintain the status quo, and solely so that the Court can make an informed decision about its authority to issue relief and whether any relief that it has the power to issue should be granted, the respondents are temporarily enjoined from removing the petitioner from the United States. Additionally, so that the petitioner can fully participate in these proceedings and maintain adequate access to legal counsel, the respondents also are enjoined from transferring the petitioner to any district outside the Western District of New York. See Perez y Perez v. Noem, 2025 WL 1908284, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2025) (collecting cases). In Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2025 WL 3085032 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2025), this Court held that noncitizens who are present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but instead are subject to detention under section 1226. The Court further held "that constitutional due process requires the government to bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is either a danger to the community or a flight risk even at an initial bond hearing under section 1226(a)." Id. at *12. And in Cabrera Martinez v. Marich, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2025 WL 3771228 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2025), this Court held that detention of noncitizens who have remained in the country following expiration of parole is under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not section 1225. It appears that the holding of Alvarez Ortiz and/or Cabrera Martinez may apply to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 2/27/2026, why, in light of one or both of those decisions, (1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not order that the petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 2/20/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

Feb 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. (TMK)

Feb 20, 2026

Case Assigned to Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. Notification to Chambers of on-line civil case opening. (TMK)

#3

Feb 23, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#4

Feb 23, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,,, filed by Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#5

Feb 23, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jose Luis Fernandez Garcia On 2/20/2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of its decision in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2025 WL 3085032 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2025), "(1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not order that the petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay." Docket Item 2 . In response, the "[r]espondents acknowledge[d] that this Court's prior rulings [including Alvarez Ortiz] concerning similar challenges to the government policy or practice at issue in this case, and the common question of law between this case and those rulings, would control the result in this case should the Court adhere to its legal reasoning in those prior decisions." Docket Item 4 at 1. The respondents have reserved all rights, including the right to appeal, and this Court appreciates their efforts "to conserve judicial and party resources" by not rehashing issues that this Court already has decided. See id. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Alvarez Ortiz, this Court GRANTS the petition and ORDERS the respondents to provide the petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven calendar days of the date of this order. At that hearing, the government shall bear the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk. At that bond hearing, the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay. If the respondents fail to provide such a hearing within seven calendar days, they shall immediately release the petitioner. On or before 3/3/2026, the respondents shall file a status report confirming that the petitioner has either been granted a bond hearing in compliance with this order or released from custody. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 2/23/2026.(ZHM) (Entered: 02/23/2026)