Western District of New York • 6:26-cv-06454

#1

Apr 21, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Htun Min Zaw. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (JHF) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

#2

Apr 21, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Htun Min Zaw. (JHF) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

#3

Apr 21, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Jack Danziger appearing as to Htun Min Zaw. (JHF) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

Apr 21, 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. (JHF)

Apr 21, 2026

Filing fee received: $5.00, receipt number 100009421. (JHF)

#4

Apr 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. 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 29, 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 grants the motion for a temporary restraining order to the extent that Respondents are temporarily enjoined 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 04/22/2026. (JKS)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 04/22/2026)

Apr 22, 2026

Clerk emailed 1 Petition to USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov. (TF)

#5

Apr 27, 2026

Letter filed by ICE Field Office Director / ICE Custodian Request for Extension on Consent. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Moar, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#6

Apr 27, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Barrie Moar on behalf of ICE Field Office Director / ICE Custodian (Moar, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#7

Apr 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting 5 Consent Letter for Extension of Time. Based on the consent of the parties and the reasons stated in Respondents' letter, the Court grants the requested extension of time to respond to the Court's April 22, 2026, order to show cause (Dkt. 4). Respondents shall respond to the order to show cause or otherwise provide a status update on this matter on or before May 13, 2026. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 04/28/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 04/28/2026)

#8

May 13, 2026

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by ICE Field Office Director / ICE Custodian. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Moar, Daniel) (Entered: 05/13/2026)

#9

May 14, 2026

TEXT ORDER re: 8 Motion to Dismiss. Responses are due on or before June 4, 2026. Replies are due on or before June 11, 2026. 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 5/14/2026. (EKH) (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#10

May 14, 2026

First MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad prosequendum, First MOTION for Hearing re Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge, by Htun Min Zaw.(Danziger, Jack) . (Entered: 05/14/2026)

#11

May 15, 2026

TEXT ORDER re: 10 Motion to Enforce. On May 14, 2026, Petitioner informed the Court that a bond hearing was held and bond was denied on the basis of flight risk. (Dkt. 10). Petitioner contends that Respondents did not prove flight risk by clear and convincing evidence and that the Immigration Judge transferred the burden of proof to Petitioner. (Id.). Petitioner also seeks to have his asylum application stayed pending the resolution of this motion. (Id.). Responses to the motion are due on or before May 29, 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 5/15/2026. (EKH) (Entered: 05/15/2026)

#12

May 29, 2026

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 10 First MOTION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad prosequendum First MOTION for Hearing re Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge, filed by ICE Field Office Director / ICE Custodian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Moar, Daniel) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

#13

Jun 20, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting motion to dismiss 8 and dismissing petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. A petition was filed on or about April 21, 2026, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, by Nant Mya Mya Thet ("Petitioner"), alleging that her husband Htun Min Zaw ("Mr. Zaw") was unlawfully detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York. (Dkt. 1). On May 13, 2026, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petition had not alleged any facts showing that Mr. Zaw was prevented from proceeding on his own accord. (Dkt. 8). The Court issued a scheduling order requiring any opposition to be filed by June 4, 2026 (Dkt. 9), but no papers were filed. Instead, Petitioner has filed papers addressed to the adequacy of the bond hearing conducted by an immigration judge (Dkt. 10), but without jurisdiction the Court cannot act on the § 2241 petition. Respondent is correct, that one of the "firmly rooted prerequisites for next friend standing" is an "adequate explanation--such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability--why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action." See Villa as Next Friend of Villa v. Warden, Broome Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 9:26-CV-00397 (BKS), 2026 WL 925828, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2026) (citation modified). While the Court does not necessarily agree with Respondent that the standard is as demanding as suggested in Respondent's motion papers, here there has been absolutely no attempt by Petitioner to satisfy this requirement--nor any response to the motion to dismiss. And this is not a case where Petitioner is proceeding pro se (where the Court may be more lenient with the strict satisfaction of procedural requirements). Accordingly, because the Court cannot act without jurisdiction, and Petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements of next friend status, Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 06/20/2026. (MGB)Clerk to Follow up Modified on 6/20/2026 (MGB). (Entered: 06/20/2026)

#14

Jun 22, 2026

JUDGMENT dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Clerk on 6/22/26. (JHF) (Entered: 06/22/2026)