Eastern District of New York • 1:26-cv-02038

#1

Apr 06, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filing fee $ 5, receipt number ANYEDC-20082821, filed by George Habib. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Supplement) (Bishara, Sherif) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#2

Apr 06, 2026

First MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by George Habib. (Bishara, Sherif) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#3

Apr 07, 2026

Proposed Summons.Civil Cover Sheet.. by George Emad Wadie Habib (Bishara, Sherif) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

#4

Apr 07, 2026

This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KAD) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

#5

Apr 07, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Upon consideration of the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas ("Petition"), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1) Petitioner shall cause a copy of this order and the Petition to be served on Respondents by April 7, 2026; 2) Petitioner shall file proof of service on the docket by April 8, 2026; 3) Respondents are ORDERED to file a return to the order to show cause why the Petition should not be granted by April 10, 2026, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243; 4) The parties are further ORDERED to appear for a hearing on the Petition on April 16, 2026, at 11:30 A.M. in Courtroom 6C South before Judge Orelia E. Merchant. Alternatively, the parties may file a joint letter by April 10, 2026, indicating that they waive the hearing and consent to the Court issuing a decision on the submissions.Moreover, to preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling on the Petition, Petitioner shall not be removed from the Eastern District of New York until further order of this Court. M.K. v. Joyce, 25-cv-01935-JMF, 2025 WL 750599, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) ("To preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling on the petition, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise."). Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 4/7/2026. (MMP) (Entered: 04/07/2026)

#6

Apr 07, 2026

Affidavit of Service

Apr 07, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Apr 07, 2026

Notice: Re: Incomplete Civil Cover Sheet

Apr 07, 2026

Notice: Case Requires Newly Updated Civil Cover Sheet. (Please Use Link Below) The Clerk's Office cannot assign this case without a completed JS-44 (Rev. 3.23.2026; Effective 3.24.2026). Civil Cover Sheet. Please resubmit corrected Civil Cover Sheet. The form is available at: https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/document-search . SEARCH CATEGORIES Forms FILTER Clerks Office Forms and Instructions SEARCH JS 44 Civil Cover Sheet Revised 3/23/2026 Please submit corrected Civil Cover Sheet under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (CV)

Apr 07, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Orelia E. Merchant. 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. (KAD)

#7

Apr 08, 2026

Affidavit of Service

#8

Apr 09, 2026

Extension of Time to File Document

Apr 09, 2026

ORDER granting 8 Motion for Extension of Time: The Court grants Respondents' 8 motion for extension of time. Respondents are ordered to file a return to the order to show cause why the Petition should not be granted by 11:30 AM on April 17, 2026, and the hearing is hereby rescheduled from April 16, 2026, to April 17, 2026, at 1:00 PM. Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 4/9/2026. (TPL)

Apr 09, 2026

1 - Terminate Hearings AND Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File AND ~Util - Set Hearings

#9

Apr 10, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#10

Apr 16, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#11

Apr 16, 2026

Reply in Support

#12

Apr 17, 2026

Reply in Support

Apr 17, 2026

Show Cause Hearing

#13

Apr 20, 2026

Letter

#14

Apr 22, 2026

Memorandum & Opinion

#15

Apr 27, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

#16

May 01, 2026

Enforce Judgment

May 04, 2026

Order(Other)

#17

May 11, 2026

Response in Opposition to Motion

May 14, 2026

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Enforce: On April 22, 2026, the Court issued a memorandum and order granting Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See generally Memorandum and Order, Dkt. 14 ("April 22 Order"). In doing so, the Court directed Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bong hearing where the Government bears the burden of demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a risk of flight. See id. at 9. On May 1, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion to enforce the Court's April 22 Order, arguing that, while he was given a new bond hearing, the Immigration Judge ("IJ") predetermined the outcome of the proceeding and failed to hold the Government to its burden of proof. See Petitioner's Motion to Enforce the Court's Order at 1-2, 6, Dkt. 16 ("Motion to Enforce"). Petitioner requests that the "the Court order a new bond hearing before a different Immigration Judge under constitutionally proper standards or, in the alternative, order his immediate release." Id. at 1. On May 11, 2026, Respondents filed an opposition, arguing that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to review the Motion to Enforce, which is, at bottom, a challenge to the IJ's weighing of the evidence. See generally Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Enforce, Dkt. 17. Petitioner's 16 Motion to Enforce is denied. U.S. Code, title 8, "[s]ection 1226(e) specifically divests [district courts] of jurisdiction to review the decisions of the IJ and the [Board of Immigration Appeals] (acting on behalf of the Attorney General) regarding the detention of aliens under section 1226." Hamilton v. Shanahan, 09 Civ. 6869 (SAS), 2009 WL 5173927, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2009); see also Arevalo-Guasco v. Dubois, 788 F. App'x 25, 27 (2d Cir. 2019) (noting that "§ 1226(e) precludes judicial review of the IJ's weighing of evidence and factual findings regarding whether [the petitioner] is a danger to the community"). Here, the crux of Petitioner's argument is a disagreement as to how the IJ assessed the evidence. Petitioner contends that the "Government's burden was not meaningfully applied"; that the "dangerousness finding [was] based on speculation rather than record evidence"; that the IJ "failed to develop the record"; and that her "credibility determination [was] arbitrary and unsupported." Motion to Enforce at 6-8. These challenges are, in essence, a disagreement with the IJ's weighing of the evidence, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to review them. See Lantigua v. Decker, 17 Civ. 4880 (LGS), 2017 WL 5054567, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2017) ("An assertion that an IJ... misread, misunderstood, or misapplied the law in weighing factors relevant to the grant or denial of discretionary relief does not convert what is essentially an argument that an IJ... abused their discretion into a legal question." (quoting Guyadin v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 465, 468 (2d Cir. 2006))). Furthermore, the Court has reviewed the transcript provided by Petitioner and does not find legal or constitutional error on the face of the record. The IJ weighed the evidence before her and explicitly found that that the Government demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community. See Motion to Enforce, Transcript at 2, Dkt. 16-1 ("This is a habeas bond hearing where the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is a danger to the community or a flight risk."); id. (outlining the evidence before her); id. at 2-8 (permitting examination of Petitioner); id. at 8-10 (permitting the parties to make closing statements); id. at 11 (again stating the standard and making her oral ruling, which denied bond based on her determination of the evidence before her). Ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 5/14/2026. (MMP)

May 14, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment

#18

May 22, 2026

Transcript