Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-00467

#1

Mar 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Madbar Hossain.(DDS) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#2

Mar 13, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Madbar Hossain 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, 808 F.Supp.3d 579 (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 598. 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 3/20/2026, 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. In his petition, Hossain also requests to proceed in forma pauperis (that is, as a person who should have the prepayment of the ordinary filing fee waived because he cannot afford it). Docket Item 1 at 12. The filing fee for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is $5.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Whenever an individual submits a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the individual must either (a) pay the filing fee or (b) submit a motion to proceed IFP. As required by statute, an immigration detainee that seeks to proceed IFP must submit an affidavit or affirmation detailing the petitioner's assets and liabilities and swearing under oath the petitioner is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see also id. § 1915(h) (Prison Litigation Reform Act's other requirements for proceeding IFP only apply to a "prisoner... accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for... violations of criminal law"). Here, Hossain did not pay the $5.00 filing fee, nor did he submit an affidavit swearing that he is unable to pay the filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Despite this deficiency, in light of the serious issues raised in Hossain's petition, the Court deems it appropriate to conditionally grant his request to proceed in forma pauperis. This grant is conditional, however, on Hossain submitting either a motion to proceed in forma pauperis containing the required affidavit or affirmation or paying the $5.00 filing fee. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 3/13/2026. (ZHM)This was mailed to: the petitioner. (Entered: 03/13/2026)

Mar 13, 2026

Remark: Filer did not pay filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis request. The clerk mailed to the petitioner a pro se packet including a privacy notice, consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, pro se assistance program information and a civil case timeline. (DDS)

#3

Mar 17, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of Pam Bondi, Joseph Freden, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#4

Mar 17, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Pam Bondi, Joseph Freden, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#5

Mar 17, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Pam Bondi, Joseph Freden, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem re 3 Notice of Appearance, 4 Reply/Response (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

#6

Mar 19, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 4 Reply/Response filed by Kristi Noem, Tammy Marich, Pam Bondi, Todd Lyons, Joseph Freden On 3/13/2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of its decision in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F.Supp.3d 579, "(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. In its prior order, this Court also granted the petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") on the condition that he submit either a motion to proceed IFP containing the required affidavit or affirmation or pay the $5.00 filing fee. See id. The petitioner has not yet done either. Nevertheless, in light of the government's concession regarding the common issues of law between this case and this Court's prior rulings, see Docket Item 4 at 1, along with the significant liberty interests at stake, the Court is inclined to construe the petitioner's request to proceed IFP, Docket Item 1 at 12, as the required affidavit or affirmation. If the respondents object to the Court doing so, they shall file any objection by 3/20/2026. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 3/19/2026. (ZHM)This was mailed to: the petitioner. (Entered: 03/19/2026)

#7

Mar 23, 2026

TEXT ORDER: On 3/19/2026, the Court indicated that it was "inclined to construe the petitioner's request to proceed" in forma pauperis ("IFP") as the affidavit or affirmation that is required to proceed IFP. See Docket Item 6 . The respondents have not objected, and the time to do since has expired. See id. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the petitioner's request, Docket Item 1 at 12, to proceed IFP. Moreover, in light of the respondents' prior concession regarding the common question of law between this case and this Court's prior rulings, see Docket Item 4 at 1, for the reasons explained in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), the Court GRANTS the petition. The respondents are ORDERED 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 3/31/2026, 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 3/23/2026. (ZHM)This was mailed to: the petitioner. (Entered: 03/23/2026)

#8

Mar 30, 2026

Letter filed by Pam Bondi, Joseph Freden, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

#9

Mar 31, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Pam Bondi, Joseph Freden, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem re 8 Letter (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

#10

Apr 01, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 8 Letter filed by Kristi Noem, Tammy Marich, Pam Bondi, Todd Lyons, Joseph Freden. The respondents have filed a letter, Docket Item 8, indicating that an immigration judge held a bond hearing in compliance with this Court's order, Docket Item 7, and that the petitioner was ordered released on bond. If the petitioner believes there are any further issues properly before this Court, the petitioner may show cause within 14 days of this order. If the petitioner does not show cause why issues remain before this Court within 14 days, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case without further order. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 4/1/2026. (DDC)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 04/01/2026)

#11

Apr 16, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Madbar Hossain against Joseph Freden, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi, Tammy Marich, Todd Lyons. Signed by Andrew W. Moeller, Clerk of Court on 4/16/2026. (CGJ)This was mailed to: Petitioner. (Entered: 04/16/2026)

#12

Apr 27, 2026

NOTICE of Change of Address by Madbar Hossain. Clerk updated address of record. (DDS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)