Completed
Case Information
Filed: April 24, 2026
Assigned to:
Lawrence Joseph Vilardo
Referred to:
—
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause:
28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Completed: June 01, 2026
Last Activity:
June 01, 2026
Parties:
View All Parties →
Docket Entries
#1
Apr 24, 2026
Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5803133.), filed by MD Jashim Uddin. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, Notice of Custody Determination, # 3 Exhibit B, Bond, # 4 Exhibit C, NTA, # 5 Exhibit D, Receipt Notice for I-589)(Berger, Aliza) (Entered: 04/24/2026)
Main Document:
Emergency PETITION
#2
Apr 27, 2026
TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by MD Jashim Uddin So that the petitioner can fully participate in these proceedings and maintain adequate access to legal counsel, the respondents are enjoined from transferring the petitioner to any district outside the Western District of New York while the Court consider the petition. See Perez y Perez v. Noem, 2025 WL 1908284, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2025) (collecting cases). SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 4/27/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 04/27/2026)
#3
Apr 27, 2026
TEXT ORDER: The petitioner, MD Jashim Uddin, "entered the United States without inspection on or about October 10, 2022." Docket Item 1 ¶ 14. "Shortly thereafter, he was encountered and apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection... and detained. Id. ¶ 15. The Department of Homeland Security "issued a Notice of Custody Determination" approving Uddin's release "under bond in the amount of $3,000," id. ¶ 16, which Uddin paid, id. ¶ 17. He was then released "[o]n or about October 21, 2022," id., and since has lived freely in the United States until being taken into custody on April 20, 2026, id. ¶¶ 21-22. He has submitted an application for asylum and withholding of removal that remains pending. Id. ¶ 19. Uddin has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See id. In that petition, Uddin alleges that his detention violates his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 72-77. He also alleges that the respondents are "unlawfully" detaining him under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) and that his detention is actually subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. Id. ¶¶ 67-71. In Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), this Court held 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. The Court further held "that constitutional due process requires the government to bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is either a danger to the community or a flight risk even at an initial bond hearing under section 1226(a)." Id. at 598. Moreover, in Torres Alonzo v. Freden, this Court granted a noncitizen's petition "for the reasons explained in Alvarez Ortiz." See Torres Alonzo, Case No. 25-cv-1172, Docket Item 9. Because the petitioner previously had been released on a monetary bond and the respondents did not identify "any new circumstances that would warrant a hew hearing,... immediate release" was the appropriate remedy in that case. See id. It appears that the holdings of Alvarez Ortiz and Torres Alonzo may apply to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 5/4/2026, why, in light of one or both of those decisions, (1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not either release the petitioner, see Torres Alonzo, Case No. 25-cv-1172, Docket Item 9, or order that the petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternative to detention, or if setting a bond, the petitioners ability to pay, see Alvarez Ortiz, 808 F. Supp. 3d at 598. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 4/27/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 04/27/2026)
Apr 27, 2026
Case assigned to Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. Notification to chambers of online civil opening. (MMG)
Apr 27, 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)
#4
May 04, 2026
NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Adam A. Khalil, appearing on behalf of James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/04/2026)
#5
May 04, 2026
REPLY/RESPONSE to re 3 Text Order, filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/04/2026)
Main Document:
REPLY/RESPONSE
#6
May 04, 2026
TEXT ORDER: On 4/27/2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of its prior decisions in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), and Torres Alonzo v. Freden, Case No. 25-cv-1172, Docket Item 9 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2025), "(1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not either release the petitioner... or order that the petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternative to detention, or if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay." Docket Item 3 . In response, the respondents cited Alvarez Ortiz and "acknowledge[d] that this Court's prior rulings concerning similar challenges to the government policy or practice at issue in this case, and the common question of law between this case and those rulings, would control the result in this case should the Court adhere to its legal reasoning in those prior decisions." Docket Item 5 at 2. The respondents reserved all their rights, including their right to appeal, and this Court appreciates their efforts "to conserve judicial and party resources" by not rehashing issues that this Court already has decided. See id. at 1. Regarding remedy, the respondents contend that "the appropriate remedy here is to order a bond hearing with the burden of proof on [the petitioner], and not to immediately release him." Id. at 2. But they do not identify any circumstances that have changed since the petitioner's prior bond order. See generally id. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Alvarez Ortiz and Torres Alonzo, the petition, Docket Item 1, is GRANTED. More specifically, the Court finds that because the petitioner previously was released on a $3,000 bond and because the government has not identified any new circumstances that would warrant a new hearing, the appropriate remedy is to release him on the prior bond order. See dos Santos v. Noem, 2025 WL 2370988, at *8-9 (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2025) (ordering immediate release where petitioner already "had [a bond] hearing in 2018" and previously was released under a "bond order" but the government had not identified any changed circumstances). The Court therefore ORDERS that the respondents release the petitioner on his prior $3,000 bond order within 24 hours of the issuance of this order. This order does not prohibit the respondents from imposing any conditions of release authorized under that prior order. On or before 5/6/2026, the respondents shall file a status report confirming that the petitioner has been released in compliance with this order. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 5/4/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 05/04/2026)
#7
May 05, 2026
TEXT ORDER. Status Conference set for 5/5/2026 at 3:30 PM in U.S. District Court, Niagara Courtroom, 8th Floor West, 2 Niagara Square, Buffalo, NY before Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. Dial-in instructions will be emailed directly to the parties. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 5/5/2026. (CMD) (Entered: 05/05/2026)
#8
May 05, 2026
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo: Status Conference held on 5/5/2026. Court ordered that this proceeding is not to be recorded, or taped in any way. If someone does record it, they will be found in contempt of court. Court heard from parties regarding Bond and ordered petitioner to be released as soon as possible, but no later than tomorrow, as stated. Court will issue a text order. Appearances by Teams Video Conference. For petitioner: Aliza H. Berger. For respondents: AUSA Adam A. Khalil. (Court Reporter Laurel Tubbs.) (CMD) (Entered: 05/05/2026)
#9
May 05, 2026
TEXT ORDER: The respondents have indicated to the Court that the petitioner's prior bond order was cancelled following his recent re-detention and that the bond amount is in the process of being refunded. In light of that information, the respondents must release the petitioner within 24 hours of this order. The respondents may reimpose the $3,000 bond under which the petitioner previously was released, but they may not do so until the refund process is complete. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 5/5/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 05/05/2026)
#10
May 06, 2026
Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin advising of Petitioner's release. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/06/2026)
Main Document:
Letter
#11
May 07, 2026
TEXT ORDER: The respondents have filed a letter, Docket Item 10, indicating that the petitioner has been released in compliance with this Court's order. If the petitioner believes there are any further issues properly before this Court, the petitioner may show cause within 14 days of this order. If the petitioner does not show cause why issues remain before this Court within 14 days, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case without further order. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 5/7/2026. (ZHM)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 05/07/2026)
#12
Jun 01, 2026
JUDGMENT in favor of MD Jashim Uddin against Executive Office for Immigration Review, James Bausch, Markwayne Mullin, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons. Signed by Clerk on 6/1/26. (JHF) (Entered: 06/01/2026)
Main Document:
JUDGMENT
Parties
Party
Party
Party
Party
Party
Attorney
Attorney
Attorney
Firm