Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-00577

#1

Mar 25, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5766447.), filed by Mahdi Barati. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Faulkner, Inessa) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

Mar 26, 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. (ARS)

Mar 26, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Meredith A. Vacca. Notification to chambers of online civil opening. (ARS)

#2

Apr 02, 2026

MOTION LETTER-MOTION REGARDING POST-FILING TRANSFER AND JURISDICTION by Mahdi Barati.(Faulkner, Inessa) (Entered: 04/02/2026)

#3

Apr 08, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Clerk of Court shall forthwith serve a copy of the Petition, ECF No. 1, together with a copy of this Order, electronically via a Notice of Electronic Filing to the United States Attorney's Office, Western District of New York at USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 4/8/2026. (MVP)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 04/08/2026)

Apr 09, 2026

Clerk emailed 1 Petition and 3 Order to USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov. (CGJ)

#4

Apr 15, 2026

AMENDED COMPLAINT against Pam Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, filed by Mahdi Barati.(Faulkner, Inessa) (Entered: 04/15/2026)

#5

Apr 16, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of Pam Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 04/16/2026)

#6

Apr 16, 2026

Letter filed by Pam Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem additional ICE documents. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 04/16/2026)

#7

Apr 21, 2026

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Pam Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

#8

Apr 24, 2026

RESPONSE in Opposition re 7 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Mahdi Barati. (Faulkner, Inessa) (Entered: 04/24/2026)

#9

May 15, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting 7 Respondents' motion to dismiss and dismissing 1 Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he is being unlawfully detained and is entitled to immediate release or a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Petitioner has been detained since February 27 or 29, 2026. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the Court lacks jurisdiction and that Petitioner is being detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), which provides for mandatory detention and does not provide for a bond hearing.For the following reasons, the Court finds that Petitioner's detention is currently governed by § 1225(b).Respondents' jurisdictional arguments under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) and (g) are rejected. See, e.g., Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 399 (2d Cir. 2025); De La Cruz v. Rhoney, No. 25-CV-6699-MAV, 2026 WL 891658 (W.D.N.Y. April 1, 2026).There is no dispute that (1) Petitioner was originally detained pursuant to § 1225(b); (2) that he was paroled into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d); or (3) that, when Petitioner was re-detained in February 2026, he was still on active parole pursuant to § 1182(d). See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 300 (2018) ("That express exception to detention [under § 1182(d)] implies that there are no other circumstances under which aliens detained under § 1225(b) may be released."); Dorval v. Barr, 414 F. Supp. 3d 386, 391-92 (W.D.N.Y. 2019); 8 C.F.R. §§ 212.5(a), (b)(5).Section 1182(d)(5)(A) states, "[t]he Secretary of Homeland Security may... in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States." (emphasis added). 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i) echoes this statutory language, providing that, "upon accomplishment of the purpose for which parole was authorized or when... neither humanitarian reasons nor public benefit warrants the continued presence of the alien in the United States,... he or she shall be restored to the status that he or she had at the time of parole."Unlike other cases in which a noncitizen was re-detained after their § 1182(d) parole had terminated, see, e.g., De La Cruz, 2026 WL 891658, Petitioner here was still subject to § 1182(d) when he was re-detained. He thus "returned to," or was "restored to," the status he had at the time of parole--which, undisputedly, was § 1225(b). See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(2)(i). He is therefore subject to mandatory detention. Petitioner's first claim, that Respondents violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by re-detaining him without a warrant as required by § 1226(a) and by failing to acknowledge that § 1226(a) applies to his re-detention, is dismissed.Nevertheless, "all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guarant[e]ed by [the Fifth Amendment], and... even aliens shall not be... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896). The Second Circuit has held that "[a] noncitizen's right to due process precludes his unreasonably prolonged detention under section 1226(c) [another "mandatory detention" provision under the Immigration and Nationality Act (the "INA")] without a bond hearing." Black v. Decker, 103 F.4th 133, 143 (2d Cir. 2024) (holding that seven months and twenty-one months of mandatory detention without a bond hearing were unreasonably prolonged). For similar reasons, a majority of other district courts within the Second Circuit have recognized due process protections apply to mandatory detention provisions of the INA, including § 1225(b). See, e.g., Al-Thuraya v. Warden, Orange Cnty. Corr. Facility, 809 F. Supp. 3d 135, 143 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) ("Because the entry-fiction exception is inapplicable in the context of Al-Thurayas request for a bond hearing, whats left is the general rule: '[A]ll persons, aliens and citizens alike, are protected by the Due Process Clause.'" and noting, "its unsurprising that the vast majority of courts to address whether individuals detained under § 1225(b) have a right to a bond hearing have held that they do."). The Court finds such cases, and the Second Circuit's decision in Black v. Decker, persuasive here.However, given that Petitioner was detained in late February 2026, the Court finds that Petitioner's due process claim in support of release or a bond hearing is premature because his detention has not yet become unreasonably prolonged. Petitioner's second and final claim, alleging a violation of procedural due process, is therefore dismissed without prejudice.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 5/15/26. (NWA) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#10

Aug 06, 2026

TEXT ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN RESPONDENTS' FAVOR AND CLOSE THIS CASE. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 8/6/26. (NWA)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 08/06/2026)

#11

Aug 07, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Christopher Chestnut, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi, Todd Lyons against Mahdi Barati. Signed by Andrew W. Moeller, Clerk of Court on 8/7/2026. (TME) (Entered: 08/07/2026)