Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-02906

#1

May 01, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 11244), filed by Ibrokhimjon Bakhriddinov. (Attachments: # 1 CoverSheet, # 2 Receipt)(r013) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

May 01, 2026

Case has been randomly assigned to the docket of Honorable Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (kc)

May 01, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad (kc)

#2

May 05, 2026

Case Opening Letter mailed to Ibrokhimjon Bakhriddinov. (kc) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

May 05, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

May 05, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#3

May 06, 2026

STANDING ORDER for procedure in cases before Judge Pulliam. All parties and counsel are directed to review Judge Pulliam's Standing Order containing rules of practice, particularly the requirement of conference before filing a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) and demonstration of complete diversity. Failure to follow these rules of practice could result in the Court striking the Motion to Dismiss on its own initiative without further notice. Signed by Judge Jason Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

#4

May 13, 2026

Text ORDER FOR SERVICE of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is ORDERED that notice of electronic filing of 1 Petition and this Order to the United States Attorney in San Antonio, Texas shall constitute service on the Federal Respondents and on all Respondents unless otherwise contested. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a response to the Petition within seven (7) days of the date of service. The Court construes the Petition as raising, at least in part, a Fifth Amendment Due Process claim which Respondents should address. See, e.g., Longoria Mendoza v. Noem, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No 5:26-CV-0728-JKP, 2026 WL 809441, at *610 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2026); Bonilla Chicas v. Warden, __ F. Supp.3d __, No. 26-CV-131, 2026 WL 539475, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2026); Marceau v. Noem, No. 26-CV-237-KC, 2026 WL 368953, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2026). Additionally, the response must identify: (1) Petitioner's alleged country of birth, so that Petitioner can be located in the Online Detainee Locator System; (2) Petitioner's alleged date of entry and statutory basis for removability; (3) any previous immigration detention history, e.g., whether Petitioner has previously been subject to immigration detention and, if so, the approximate date of Petitioner's previous release into the interior; and (4) Petitioner's alleged immigration status, e.g., whether Petitioner has a pending claim for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture or is subject to a final removal order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner elects to file a reply, Petitioner may do so no later than seven days after the Respondents file their answers/responses. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ks1) (Entered: 05/13/2026)

May 13, 2026

Order

#5

May 20, 2026

RESPONSE by U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Falcon, Barbara) (Entered: 05/20/2026)

#6

Jun 05, 2026

Response

#7

Jun 18, 2026

Notice of Attorney Appearance

#8

Jun 19, 2026

Notice

#9

Jun 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER GRANTING 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Liberally construing Petitioner's pro se petition filed before counsel entered an appearance and considering 8 Counseled Notice of Supplemental Authority, Clarification of Petitioner's Claim, and Request for Prompt Resolution, Petitioner claims that Respondents have violated procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment based on a significant presence in the United States and/or an improper revocation of release. Respondents have submitted a response in opposition. After reviewing the briefing, provided evidence, and applicable law, the Court grants the petition based on the law as set out and analyzed in Longoria Mendoza v. Noem, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, No 5:26-CV-0728-JKP, 2026 WL 809441 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2026) and numerous other cases decided by the undersigned. While there are differences between this case and Longoria Mendoza, none warrant a different result. For reasons previously stated in Longoria Mendoza, the Court finds that (1) it has jurisdiction to consider the arguments presented in the instant habeas petition; (2) any asserted failure to exhaust administrative remedies is excused; (3) Respondents have violated Petitioner's procedural due process rights; and (4) fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 are not available in habeas corpus proceedings like this one. The Court treats the instant action solely as a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and declines to consider any claim other than the alleged violation of procedural due process. The Court has considered the arguments Respondents make in response and rejects them for reasons stated in prior cases. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court concludes Petitioner's detention is unlawful, and habeas relief is proper. Because Petitioner has no known criminal history, has established a significant presence in the United States that requires due process protection, and there is no indication of flight risk or danger to the community, it is ORDERED that on or before June 24, 2026, Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner Ibrokhimjon Bakhriddinov from custody to a public location, under appropriate conditions of release. If at the time of detention in April 2026, Petitioner was complying with terms of release imposed through an unexpired parole or other active release, the imposed appropriate conditions of release shall be no more restrictive than those in place before the detention at issue. Respondents must NOTIFY Petitioner's counsel of the exact location and exact time of release as soon as practicable and no less than two hours before release. Any possible or anticipated removal or transfer of Petitioner under this present detention is PROHIBITED. No later than the next business day after the ordered release date, Respondents shall FILE a status report to confirm whether Petitioner has been released. If counsel for Petitioner disagrees with any aspect of the filed Status Report, counsel may file a separate Status Report. A written final judgment will be issued separately to summarize the orders of the Court and to close this habeas case. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rw) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

#10

Jun 22, 2026

Judgment

Jun 22, 2026

Order

#11

Jun 25, 2026

Status Report