Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00594

#1

Apr 02, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number APAWDC-9476834), filed by JESUS ALFREDO ORTIZ HERNANDEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Certificate of Service) (Rogers, Peter) (Entered: 04/02/2026)

Apr 02, 2026

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand added. (kss)

#2

Apr 03, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JESUS ALFREDO ORTIZ HERNANDEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Rogers, Peter) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

#3

Apr 03, 2026

BRIEF in Support re 2 Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by JESUS ALFREDO ORTIZ HERNANDEZ. (Rogers, Peter) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

#4

Apr 03, 2026

ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO; denying 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Petitioner Hernandez is an alien who illegally entered the United States. He is now in custody at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center. He filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1, arguing, inter alia, that he is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 USC 1226, rather than subject to mandatory detention under 8 USC 1225. In the underlying immigration proceedings, Petitioner is seeking Asylum and/or Cancellation of Removal. He has filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 2 seeking: (1) an order staying the underlying proceedings on Asylum/Cancellation of Removal; (2) and order granting immediate release or a prompt bond hearing; and enjoining his transfer outside the Court's jurisdiction. The Court is compelled to deny all three requests. Petitioner's request for an injunction ordering immediate release or an immediate bond hearing seeks the same substantive relief sought by his Petition for Habeas Corpus 1 . It is affirmative relief, rather than the maintenance of the status quo. A TRO or preliminary injunction are not appropriate avenues for this type of relief. Rather, the Court will give prompt consideration to the merits of the Petition upon the expedited case management schedule that will issue forthwith. The Court lacks the authority to enjoin Petitioner's transfer. The place of an alien's detention is left to the discretion of the Attorney General and courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin a detainee's transfer. See Calla-Collado v. Attorney General of the US, 663 F.3d 680, 685 (3d Cir. 2011). Finally, the court holds that Petitioner has not demonstrated reasonable likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the request to enjoin or otherwise stay his underlying proceedings. As an initial matter, although somewhat of a novel issue, as posed, the Court has substantial doubts as to whether it has jurisdiction to stay proceedings on removal. 8 USC 1252(a)(2) divests district courts of jurisdiction over a broad area of matters relating to removal proceedings. The Court believes that this divestiture of jurisdiction would reasonably be found to bar a district court's stay of the substantive determination on, for example, Asylum and/or Cancellation of Removal, until after a bond hearing. Further, the Court separately denies the requested TRO and injunctive relief because the basis for it is speculative, at best. Petitioner contends that if his Asylum/Cancellation of Removal proceedings are adjudicated before his bond hearing, and if his request for cancellation is denied, then the immigration judge presiding over his bond hearing may use the denial as a basis for finding him to be not eligible for bond. This is too speculative. The Court, therefore, denies the Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction.. Signed by Judge William S. Stickman on 4/3/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (Stickman, William) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

Apr 03, 2026

Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction AND Order on Motion for TRO

#5

Apr 06, 2026

Case Management Order

#6

Apr 06, 2026

CERTIFICATE of Compliance re 5 Case Management Order by Peter M. Rogers on behalf of JESUS ALFREDO ORTIZ HERNANDEZ (Rogers, Peter) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#7

Apr 14, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Jerome A. Moschetta on behalf of PAMELA BONDI, TODD LYONS, BRIAN MCSHANE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO. (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#8

Apr 14, 2026

SCHEDULING ORDER. Response to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus due by 4/14/2026; Reply due 4/20/2026. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 4/14/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bjw) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#9

Apr 14, 2026

NOTICE of No Reply and Request for Immediate Adjudication and Release by JESUS ALFREDO ORTIZ HERNANDEZ re 8 Order, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (Rogers, Peter) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#10

Apr 14, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, filed by PAMELA BONDI, TODD LYONS, BRIAN MCSHANE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, LEONARD ODDO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (I-213), # 2 Exhibit (NTA)) (Moschetta, Jerome) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#11

Apr 14, 2026

NOTICE OF INTENT NOT TO REPLY AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ADJUDICATION by JESUS ALFREDO ORTIZ HERNANDEZ re 8 Order, (Rogers, Peter) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

Apr 14, 2026

Order

#12

Apr 15, 2026

ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, a noncitizen detained by Respondents at Moshannon Valley Processing Center, seeks, inter alia, immediate release from custody or, in the alternative, an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. The parties agree that the issue before the Court is whether Petitioner is subject to discretionary detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1226(a) and therefore entitled to a bond hearing or mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) and therefore not entitled to a bond hearing. Respondents rely on the BIA's decisions in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (B.I.A. 2025) and/or Matter of Q. Li, 29 I. & N. Dec. 66 (B.I.A. 2025). The Court is mindful that several United States Courts of Appeals have ruled that noncitizens like Petitioner who have resided in the interior of the country for years are "applicants for admission" subject to mandatory detention. See Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi et al, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026); see also Herrera Avila v. Bondi, No. 25-3248, 2026 WL 819258 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026); but see Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1060-62 (7th Cir. 2025) (holding that the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its argument that § 1225(b) governs noncitizens already in the United States whom ICE detained in Chicago). Nonetheless, for the reasons set forth in this Court's prior decisions, the Court concludes that: Petitioner is not required to exhaust administrative remedies as doing so would be futile; and Petitioner is subject to discretionary detention pursuant to § 1226(a) and is therefore entitled to a bond hearing. See, e.g., Zhunio v. Warden et al., No. 3:26-CV-71-CCW, ECF No. 7 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2026) (Wiegand, J.) (noncitizen who entered the United States without inspection and resided continuously in the interior of the country thereafter subject to discretionary detention pursuant to § 1226(a)); Padilla Ventura v. Rose et al., No. 3:26-cv-65-CCW, ECF No. 13 (W.D. Pa. February 3, 2026) (Wiegand, J.) (same). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED IN PART, as follows: within seven days of this Order, Petitioner must receive an individualized bond hearing conducted by an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. If Petitioner does not receive a bond hearing by that date, or if the immigration judge declines to conduct a bond hearing based on Matter of Yajure Hurtado, Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody. Within seven days of the immigration judge's decision, the parties must file a joint notice on the docket advising the Court of the outcome of the bond hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED in all other respects. In particular, for the reasons set forth in this Court's prior decisions, the Court DENIES Petitioner's request for costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) because Respondents' position, while incorrect, was substantially justified. See Orellana Rivas v. Oddo et al., No. 3:26-cv-246-CCW, ECF No. 14 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2026) (Wiegand, J.). Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 4/15/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bjw) (Entered: 04/15/2026)

Apr 15, 2026

Order Dismissing Case