Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-00375

#1

Mar 03, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5737798.), filed by Karamba Diaite. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A - I-213, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B Order of Release on Recognizance, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C- NTA, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D - Master Calendar Hearing Notice, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E - Bond Order, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F - Removal Order, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit G - BIA Appeal Receipt)(McLean, Siana) (Entered: 03/03/2026)

Mar 04, 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)

Mar 04, 2026

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

#2

Mar 05, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 3/19/2026. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 3/5/2026. (JLH) (Entered: 03/05/2026)

Mar 05, 2026

Clerk emailed 1 Petition to USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov (JLH)

#3

Mar 13, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of James Bausch, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#4

Mar 13, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Order to Show Cause filed by James Bausch, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#5

Mar 13, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney with additional ICE documents. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#6

Mar 13, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Order to Show Cause Petitioner's Reply to Response filed by Karamba Diaite. (McLean, Siana) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#7

Mar 17, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On March 3, 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 file a response within 14 days. ECF No. 2. Respondents filed a response on March 13, 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. 4. 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 the United States without inspection on January 2, 2024, and was promptly apprehended by immigration officials. On January 3, 2024, Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear alleging he entered the United States without inspection and was released from custody pursuant to an Order of Release on Recognizance. Petitioner has lived in the United States following his release. On November 26, 2025, Petitioner was apprehended by ICE after making a wrong turn at the Peace Bridge in Buffalo, New York. An immigration judge denied bond on January 9, 2026, after finding it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Petitioner's request for a custody redetermination. Da Cunha did not involve a petitioner who had previously been released on humanitarian parole or any other mechanism of release. 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 argue 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 Nos. 1, 6; O'Brien, 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 3/17/2026. (MVP) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#8

Mar 25, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#9

Mar 25, 2026

TEXT ORDER: On March 25, 2026, Respondents informed the Court that a bond hearing was held. Dkt. No. 8 . The Court views the issues raised by petition as now resolved and intends to direct the Clerk's Office to close the case, unless on or before April 1, 2026, either party objects. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 3/25/2026. (KSP) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#10

Apr 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER: On March 25, 2026, the Court directed that any remaining objections be filed by the parties. Having received no objections, the Court dismisses any remaining claims in the petition without prejudice and directs the Clerk of the Court to close the case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 4/2/2026. (KSP)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 04/02/2026)

#11

Apr 03, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Karamba Diaite against James Bausch, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney, Todd Lyons. Signed by Clerk of Court, Andrew W. Moeller on 4/3/2026. (JLH) (Entered: 04/03/2026)