Eastern District of New York • 1:26-cv-01557

#1

Mar 16, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filing fee $ 5, receipt number ANYEDC-20010558, filed by Y.S.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - LPR card, # 2 Exhibit B - YSA mother decl, # 3 Exhibit C - YSA brother decl, # 4 Exhibit D - Judgment, # 5 Exhibit E - Probation completion letter, # 6 Exhibit F - NTA, # 7 Exhibit G - IJ decision, # 8 Civil Cover Sheet) (Lampert, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#2

Mar 16, 2026

MOTION to Seal for leave to proceed via pseudonym by Y.S.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to proceed via pseudonym) (Lampert, Alexandra) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

#3

Mar 17, 2026

This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (CV) (Entered: 03/17/2026)

Mar 17, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Mar 17, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE and Electronic Service upon the US Attorneys Office re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by the petitioner. The United States Attorney, as attorney for the defendants, is directed to show cause by 5:00 p.m. on March 20, 2026, in writing, why the petition should not be granted, and must serve a copy of the response on the petitioner, with proof of such service to the Clerk of this Court. The petitioner must file his reply, if any, by 5:00 p.m. on March 23, 2026, with proof of service to the Clerk of Court. To preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling on the petition, the petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See, e.g., Kuprashvili v. Flanagan, No. 25-cv-5268, 2025 WL 2382059, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2025) (collecting cases staying removal to maintain the status quo). Additionally, in light of the petitioner's interest in participating in further proceedings before this Court and maintaining adequate access to legal counsel throughout these proceedings, the petitioner shall not be transferred to a facility outside of this District. See Samb v. Joyce, No. 25-cv-6373 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2025) (ECF No. 3) (collecting cases in support of enjoining transfer of petitioner outside of New York City area). Service of a copy of this order, together with a copy of the petition, will be made by the Clerk of this Court through the electronic case filing system to the United States Attorney. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 3/17/2026. (CNG)

Mar 17, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Ann M. Donnelly. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (CV)

Mar 17, 2026

Order to Show Cause (463)

#5

Mar 18, 2026

Leave to File Document

#7

Mar 20, 2026

Letter

#8

Mar 23, 2026

Reply in Support

Mar 24, 2026

Scheduling Order

Mar 24, 2026

SCHEDULING ORDER: The Court has received the government's response 7 and the petitioner's reply 8 to the Court's Order to Show Cause. The government acknowledges that if the Court applies Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133 (2d Cir. 2024), it will likely conclude that the petitioner has a due process right to a bond hearing. The government also acknowledges that the petitioner seeks immediate release, but its response does not address the petitioner's due process and statutory arguments regarding release. Instead, the government asserts that "it is uncontested that the Petitioner was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude within the meaning and purview of § 1226(c) and that he has been charged with being subject to removal as a result." However, as the petitioner's reply points out, the government's assertion is incorrect. The petition argues that his theft conviction "cannot be considered a CIMT under binding Second Circuit law," so he cannot be detained under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2) or 8 U.S.C. 8 1226(c). (See ECF No. 8 at 4; ECF No. 1 ¶ 80.)Therefore, by March 25, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. the government is directed to address, in a letter not to exceed six pages, the issues discussed in the petitioner's reply. Specifically, it should respond to the petitioner's due process and statutory arguments that he is entitled to release, as well as his argument that a bond hearing in immigration court would be inadequate to protect his due process rights. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 3/24/2026. (CNG)