Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01051

#1

May 21, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Yasmani Mora Perez. (CGJ) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#2

May 21, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Yasmani Mora Perez. (CGJ) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#3

May 21, 2026

MOTION to Expedite by Yasmani Mora Perez. (CGJ) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#4

May 21, 2026

MOTION for Immediate Release by Yasmani Mora Perez. (CGJ) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#5

May 21, 2026

MOTION for Stay of Removal by Yasmani Mora Perez. (CGJ) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

May 21, 2026

Remark: Petitioner has been mailed a pro se packet including a privacy notice, consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge and a Civil Case Timeline. (CGJ)

May 21, 2026

Filing fee received: $5.00, receipt number 100009650 (CGJ)

#6

May 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting 3 MOTION to Expedite filed by Yasmani Mora Perez and temporarily granting 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Yasmani Mora Perez, 5 MOTION for Stay of Removal filed by Yasmani Mora Perez.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. See Perez y Perez v. Noem, 2025 WL 1908284, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2025) (collecting cases). A further order will issue regarding the petition.SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 5/22/2026. (DDC)This was mailed to: the petitioner. (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#7

May 22, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Yasmani Mora Perez.On or before 5/27/2026, the respondents shall respond to the petitioner's allegations that he is being housed in unsafe conditions and not receiving adequate medical treatment. In Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, --- F.4th ---, 2026 WL 1146044 (2d Cir. Apr. 28, 2026), the Second Circuit 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. And in Cabrera Martinez v. Marich, 816 F. Supp. 3d 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), this Court held that detention of noncitizens who have remained in the country following expiration of parole is under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not section 1225. Additionally, this Court held in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), "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. It appears that the holdings of Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, Alvarez Ortiz and/or Cabrera Martinez may apply to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 5/29/2026, why, in light of those decisions, (1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not 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 alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 5/22/2026. (DDC)This was mailed to: the petitioner. (Entered: 05/22/2026)