Western District of New York • 6:26-cv-06393

#1

Apr 06, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5780712.), filed by Fagner Silva De Santana. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Barnaby, Daneal) (Entered: 04/06/2026)

#2

Apr 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. This Court has issued Decision and Orders in Quituizaca Quituisaca v. Bondi, et al., No. 25-cv-6527, 2025 WL 3264440 (W.D.N.Y Nov. 24, 2025) and Lieogo v. Freden, et al., No. 6:25-CV-06615 EAW, 2025 WL 3290694 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025), finding that noncitizens who are present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but instead are subject to detention under section 1226. In addition, this Court issued Decision and Orders in Ivonin v. Rhoney, et al., No. 6:25-CV-06673 EAW, 2026 WL 199283 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2026) and Ab-Rahim v. Marich, No. 6:26-CV-06005-EAW, 2026 WL 279113, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2026), holding that the detention of noncitizens following expiration of parole is also governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and not § 1225. The Court has also concluded based on the circumstances in these cases and a balancing of the factors under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), that due process requires the burden to be on the government at the bond hearing to establish dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Lieogo, 2025 WL 3290694, at *4-5. In deciding whether the government has met their burden of proof, the IJ must consider whether less-restrictive alternatives to detention can reasonably address the government's interest in continued detention and if the IJ finds that the government has not met this burden, then in setting any bond the IJ must consider ability to pay and alternative conditions of release. Id.Accordingly, Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before April 14, 2026, why, in light of those decisions, the petition in this case should not be granted to the extent that it seeks an order requiring that Petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, Petitioner's ability to pay.In addition, the Court temporarily enjoins Respondents from transferring Petitioner outside this District pending a resolution of the petition because the Court finds that Petitioner's presence in the District is necessary to support the Court's resolution of the issues in the petition, including because it will enable Petitioner to fully participate in these proceedings and maintain adequate access to legal counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("Unless the application for the writ and the return present only issues of law the person to whom the writ is directed shall be required to produce at the hearing the body of the person detained. The applicant or the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set forth in the return or allege any other material facts."). This temporary order extends to the transfer of Petitioner outside the country so as 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.Further, the Clerk's Office is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this Text 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. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 4/7/2026. (JKS)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 04/07/2026)

Apr 07, 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. (MMG)

Apr 07, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford. Notification to chambers of online civil opening. (MMG)

Apr 08, 2026

Clerk emailed 1 Petition to USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov on 4/7/2026. (TF)

#3

Apr 13, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of James T. Basuch, Steven Kurzdorfer, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullins (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

#4

Apr 13, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by James T. Basuch, Steven Kurzdorfer, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullins. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

#5

Apr 13, 2026

ORDER granting 1 petition to the extent Petitioner seeks a bond hearing. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 4/13/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 04/13/2026)

#6

Apr 22, 2026

Letter filed by James T. Basuch, Steven Kurzdorfer, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullins re continuance of bond hearing by Petitioner. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

#7

Apr 23, 2026

Letter filed by James T. Basuch, Steven Kurzdorfer, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullins re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 04/23/2026)

#8

Apr 23, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On April 23, 2026, Respondents informed the Court that a bond hearing was held and bond was denied. (Dkt. 7). The Court views the issues raised by the petition as now resolved and intends to direct the Clerk's Office to close the case, unless on or before April 30, 2026, either party objects. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 04/23/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 04/23/2026)

#9

Apr 27, 2026

Letter and Motion to enforce filed by Fargner Silva De Santana . (Barnaby, Daneal) Modified on 4/28/2026 (TF). (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#10

Apr 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 9 Letter and Motion to Enforce. Responses to the motion to enforce are due on or before May 12, 2026. By that date, Respondents are also directed to provide a copy of the bond hearing transcript. Upon review of the papers, the Court will determine if oral argument is necessary and, if so, will inform the parties of the date and time. Otherwise, the matter will be deemed submitted and decided on the papers. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 04/28/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

Apr 28, 2026

E-Filing Notification: Incorrect event used to electronically file document. For future reference, use Motion event. No action required re 9 MOTION. Clerk modified event. (TF)

#11

May 07, 2026

Letter filed by James T. Basuch, Steven Kurzdorfer, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullins with Digital Audio Recording transcript of bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

#12

May 12, 2026

Letter filed by James T. Basuch, Steven Kurzdorfer, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullins re motion to enforce. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#13

May 19, 2026

ORDER granting 9 Motion to Enforce. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 05/19/2026. (MGB)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 05/19/2026)

#14

May 29, 2026

Letter filed by James T. Bausch, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullins, Philip Rhoney re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#15

May 29, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On May 29, 2026, Respondents informed the Court that a second bond hearing was held and bond was denied. (Dkt. 14). The Court views the issues raised by the petition as now resolved and intends to direct the Clerk's Office to close the case, unless on or before June 5, 2026, either party objects. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 05/29/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#16

Jun 08, 2026

Second MOTION to Enforce Judgment by Fargner Silva De Santana.(Barnaby, Daneal) (Entered: 06/08/2026)

#17

Jun 08, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 16 Second Motion to Enforce. Responses to the motion to enforce are due on or before June 22, 2026. By that date, Respondents are also directed to provide a copy of the May 27, 2026, bond hearing transcript. Upon review of the papers, the Court will determine if oral argument is necessary and, if so, will inform the parties of the date and time. Otherwise, the matter will be deemed submitted and decided on the papers. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 06/08/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 06/08/2026)

#18

Jun 09, 2026

Letter filed by James T. Bausch, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullins, Philip Rhoney re immigration judge's failure to comply with this Court's Order, again. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#19

Jun 10, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting 16 Second Motion to Enforce. On April 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he had entered the United States in October 2023 without inspection or parole and was detained by ICE on March 17, 2026. (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 1-2). Respondents argued that Petitioner's detention was authorized by "8 U.S.C. § 1225, because, as an alien who entered without inspection or parole, he was and remains an applicant for admission." (Dkt. 4 at 2-3). On April 13, 2026, the Court granted the petition to the extent Petitioner sought a bond hearing. (Dkt. 5). Respondents informed the Court that a bond hearing was held before an immigration judge and bond was denied. (Dkt. 7). At the bond hearing, Respondents did not argue that Petitioner posed a danger to the community and only argued that he was a flight risk. (Dkt. 11 at 5). After bond was denied, Petitioner filed a motion to enforce the Court's April 12, 2026, Order, arguing in part that the immigration judge did not comply with the terms of that Order by failing to consider alternative means to detention. (Dkt. 9). Respondents conceded that the immigration judge did not make such a consideration in denying bond and requested that the Court order a second bond hearing rather than the immediate release requested by Petitioner. (Dkt. 12). In light of Respondents' concession, the Court ordered a second bond hearing and warned that "[f]ailure to comply with the directives herein will result in a Court order directing Petitioner's release." (Dkt. 13 at 3). At the second bond hearing, a different immigration judge concluded Petitioner was a flight risk and denied bond. (Dkt. 14). Petitioner then filed a second motion to enforce, arguing once again that the immigration judge failed to consider alternatives to detention. (Dkt. 16). Respondents again conceded that the immigration judge failed to consider such alternatives at the second bond hearing. (Dkt. 18). Petitioner has been held in ICE detention for nearly three months, and two separate immigration judges have failed to conduct a bond hearing that complies with the requirements set forth in the Court's Orders. Since Petitioner filed his petition, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026), holding that noncitizens such as Petitioner who are present in the United States after entering without inspection and admission are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but instead are subject to detention under § 1226(a). Based on these considerations, the appropriate remedy is Petitioner's immediate release. Petitioner's second motion to enforce (Dkt. 16) is accordingly granted. Furthermore, the record indicates that Petitioner is currently held in California but that he last resided in New York. Respondents are directed to immediately return Petitioner to the Western District of New York for his release. If Petitioner would prefer to be immediately released and arrange transportation on his own, his counsel should immediately notify the Court and Respondents. Respondents may impose reasonable conditions of release in their discretion. Respondents are directed to file a status update confirming Petitioner's release on or before June 15, 2026. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 06/10/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

#20

Jun 10, 2026

TEXT ORDER modifying 19 Text Order granting Second Motion to Enforce. Petitioner's counsel has notified the Court that Petitioner prefers his immediate release as opposed to the Court's prior Order directing Respondents to transfer him back to the Western District of New York before effectuating his release. Accordingly, the Court modifies its prior Order (Dkt. 19) and directs Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody. Respondents are not required to transport Petitioner back to the Western District of New York. Respondents may still impose reasonable conditions of release in their discretion. Respondents are likewise still directed to file a status update confirming Petitioner's release on or before June 15, 2026. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 06/10/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 06/10/2026)

#21

Jun 11, 2026

Letter filed by James T. Bausch, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullins, Philip Rhoney re Petitioner's release. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 06/11/2026)

#22

Jun 12, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On June 10, 2026, the Court ordered Petitioner released. (Dkt. 19). Respondents filed a letter confirming Petitioner's release the next day. (Dkt. 21). The Court views the issues raised by the petition as now resolved and intends to direct the Clerk's Office to close the case, unless on or before June 22, 2026, either party objects. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 06/12/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 06/12/2026)

#23

Jun 24, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On June 10, 2026, the Court ordered Petitioner released. (Dkt. 19). Respondents filed a letter confirming Petitioner's release the next day. (Dkt. 21). The Court issued a Text Order on June 12, 2026, directing the parties to inform the Court on or before June 22, 2026, if any matters in the petition remained unresolved and to date nothing has been filed. (Dkt. 22). Accordingly, the Court dismisses any remaining claims in the petition without prejudice and directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 06/24/2026. (JKS)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 06/24/2026)

#24

Jun 25, 2026

JUDGMENT dismissing petition without prejudice. Signed by Clerk of Court on 6/25/2026. (TF) (Main Document 24 replaced on 6/25/2026) (TF). (Entered: 06/25/2026)