Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-00487

#1

Mar 15, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5751601.), filed by Bin Zhu. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 03/15/2026)

#2

Mar 16, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Bin Zhu.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 Ceesay v. Kurzdorfer, 781 F. Supp. 3d 137 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), this Court addressed a petition concerning the re-detention of a noncitizen who was subject to a final order of removal and had been released from ICE custody on an order of supervision. Without prior notice, the petitioner was arrested and detained when he appeared for a regularly scheduled check-in with ICE. Id. at 146-47. Moreover, because he was not given an opportunity to be heard nor was the person who revoked his release authorized to do so, the revocation of his order of supervision did not comply with the relevant regulations. Id. at 159-66. Based on the facts presented in that case, the Court ruled for the petitioner, concluding that "because ICE did not follow its own regulations in deciding to re-detain [the petitioner], his due process rights were violated, and he [wa]s entitled to release." Id. at 166. More specifically, the Court found that to properly revoke release, (1) the petitioner must be given an informal interview and opportunity to respond to the reasons for his or her revocation of release, and (2) the Executive Associate Director of ICE must revoke the release, or in the alternative, a district director or another official "delegated the function or authority for a particular geographic district, region, or area" may revoke release—but only after finding that revocation is in the public interest and that the circumstances do not reasonably permit referral of the case to the Executive Associate Director. See id. at 159-66.It appears that the holding of Ceesay may apply to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by 3/23/2026 why, in light of that decision, (1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not release the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 3/16/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

Mar 16, 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. (LB)

Mar 16, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. Notification to chambers of online civil opening. (LB)