Eastern District of New York • 2:26-cv-03634

#1

Jun 17, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Denis Josue Yanez Matute. Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No (Attachments: # 1 I-130 Approved Petition for Resident Alien) (LJ) Modified on 6/17/2026 (LJ). (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#2

Jun 17, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order to Enjoin Respondents from Transferring Petitioner From the Jurisdiction by Denis Josue Yanez Matute. (Musa-Obregon, S.) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#3

Jun 17, 2026

Proposed Summons. by Denis Josue Yanez Matute (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Musa-Obregon, S.) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#4

Jun 17, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Denis Josue Yanez Matute. (Attachments: # 1 I-130 Approved Petition for Resident Alien) (Musa-Obregon, S.) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#5

Jun 17, 2026

This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (LJ) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#6

Jun 17, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Robert W. Schumacher, II on behalf of Todd Blanche, Ken Genalo, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Warden, Nassau County Correctional Center (aty to be noticed) (Schumacher, Robert) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

#7

Jun 17, 2026

First MOTION for Extension of Time to File To Respond To Court's Order by Todd Blanche, Ken Genalo, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Warden, Nassau County Correctional Center. (Schumacher, Robert) (Entered: 06/17/2026)

Jun 17, 2026

Order Unrestricting Access to 463 Case AND Order to Show Cause (463)

Jun 17, 2026

Quality Control Check - Summons

Jun 17, 2026

Filing Fee Received

Jun 17, 2026

Incorrect Case-Document Information

Jun 17, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Jun 17, 2026

ORDER: The motion for an extension of time 7 to file a response to the Petition is granted. The deadline to file a response is June 18, 2026 at 5:00 P.M. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 6/17/2026. (LMR)

Jun 17, 2026

ORDER: To preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See, e.g., Loc. 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. New York Shipping Ass'n, Inc., 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992) ("Once the district court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and the parties to, the litigation, the All Writs Act [28 U.S.C. § 1651] authorizes a federal court to protect that jurisdiction." (quotations omitted)); Garcia-Izquierdo v. Gartner, No. 04-CV-7377, 2004 WL 2093515, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 17, 2004) (observing that, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, a district court "may order that a petitioner's deportation be stayed when a stay is necessary to preserve the Court's jurisdiction of the case"); Khalil v. Joyce, 771 F. Supp. 3d 268, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (barring the government from removing petitioner from the United States until the Court could address his claim); cf. Michael v. I.N.S., 48 F.3d 657, 661-62 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that the All Writs Act provides a federal court of appeals reviewing a final removal order with a basis to stay removal). And in addition, in light of Petitioner's interests in participating in further proceedings before this Court and in maintaining adequate access to legal counsel through these proceedings, it is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall not be transferred except to a facility within this District, the Eastern District of New York, or the Southern District of New York, absent further order of this Court. See Ozturk v. Trump, 779 F. Supp. 3d 462, 496 (D. Vt. 2025) (ordering petitioner's transfer from Louisiana to Vermont due, in part, to her pending habeas petition), stay and mandamus denied, Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 403 (2d Cir. 2025). Respondents must inform the Court of Petitioner's current location, and must include information about any other locations where Petitioner has been held and the dates of any transfers since his initial detention, by June 18, 2026 at 12:00 P.M. Respondents must also file a response to the writ—including any legal or factual arguments why the writ should not be granted—by June 18, 2026 at 12:00 P.M. Respondents are specifically directed to address why Petitioner may be detained in light of his approved I-130 petition. If Respondents believe this case is unique, and raises issues separate and apart from those raised in similar petitions, e.g., Rodriguez-Acurio v. Almodovar, -- F. Supp. 3d --, No. 25-CV-6065, 2025 WL 3314420, at *23 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2025), and as a result require additional time to provide some or all of the information requested, in lieu of responding at 12:00 P.M., they may file a request for additional time with a short explanation for why this case raises unique issues not previously decided. The Clerk's office is directed to remove the restriction within this matter. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 6/17/2026. (LMR)

Jun 17, 2026

A summons was not issued for one of the following reasons: No summons provided, please submit summons. The event can be found under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (LJ)

Jun 17, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (LJ)

Jun 17, 2026

Incorrect Case/Document Entry Information. Added missing Respondents to the case to conform to the Petition. Deleted Document Entry No. 1 and re-entered as against all Respondents. (LJ)

Jun 17, 2026

FILING FEE: $ 5, receipt number ANYEDC-20331599 (LJ)

Jun 17, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

#8

Jun 18, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

Jun 18, 2026

Order(Other)

Jun 18, 2026

ORDER: Respondents' request for an extension of time is granted in part only until tomorrow, June 19, 2026, at 5:00 P.M. because the documents submitted by Respondents plainly suggest that the arrest and detention of Petitioner violated the law. Contrary to counsel's representation, the documents submitted suggest this is not a unique case, but a part of the pattern of illegal arrests and detentions effectuated by Respondents in countless cases in this District. Petitioner's counsel is encouraged, though not required, to submit a letter of his own addressing any of the issues raised by Respondents' letter dated June 18, 2026, by June 19, 2026 at 5:00 P.M. From the documents submitted by Respondents, it appears that an NTA was issued at or around the time the June 9, 2026 I-200 arrest warrant was issued. (Resp'ts' Letter filed June 18, 2026, Dkt. No. 8 at 2). That NTA, however, says it was "superseded," and in any case is invalid because it does not include a date or time to appear. (NTA, attached to Resp'ts' Letter as Ex. C, Dkt. No. 8-3); see Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198, 202 (2018) ("A notice that does not inform a noncitizen when and where to appear for removal proceedings is not a notice to appear under section 1229(a)[.]" (quotation omitted)); Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447, 461 (2024) ("Each alien's NTA provided only that the time of the hearing was 'TBD' or 'to be set,' which is the sort of language we found to be inadequate in Pereira."). The only other NTA provided by Respondents is dated June 17, 2026—and Respondents concede that it was issued "during processing after his arrest." (Resp'ts' Letter at 2). In other words, it appears, from the documents submitted thus far, that the arrest here violates the law as the Court set forth in Gopie v. Lyons, No. 25-CV-5229, 2025 WL 3167130 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2025) and Parada Cruz v. Mullin, No. 26-CV-1110, 2026 WL 1027441 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2026). Absent any further document provided by Respondents tomorrow at 5:00 P.M. that demonstrates that Petitioner's arrest was effectuated pursuant to a valid NTA issued before his arrest, the petition will be granted and Petitioner will be released. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 6/18/2026. (LMR)

#9

Jun 19, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#10

Jun 19, 2026

Letter

#11

Jun 19, 2026

Letter confirming release by Todd Blanche, Ken Genalo, Todd Lyons (Schumacher, Robert) (Entered: 06/19/2026)

Jun 19, 2026

ORDER: Nothing in Respondents' letter 9 changes the Court's conclusion in its Order dated June 18, 2026 directing Petitioner's release. The Supreme Court held in Pereira that "[f]ailing to specify integral information like the time and place of removal proceedings unquestionably would deprive the notice to appear of its essential character." Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198, 214 (2018) (cleaned up). The cases cited in Respondents' letter are inapposite. None of the cases cited by Respondents—Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2019), United States v. Suquilanda, 116 F.4th 129 (2d Cir. 2024), and Arias-Arevalo v. Bondi, No. 23-7095, 2025 WL 3079228 (2d Cir. Nov. 4, 2025)—address whether an invalid Notice to Appear ("NTA")— one without its "essential character"— can still serve as a valid charging document for purposes of the issuance of an arrest warrant under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(b). The cases cited by Respondents address a different question regarding a different regulation—whether the omission of a hearing date and time on an NTA divests an immigration court of jurisdiction over an individual's case. See Banegas Gomez, 922 F.3d at 111 (interpreting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(b)). Whatever the import of the safe-harbor established in Banegas Gomez—permitting an immigration court to exercise jurisdiction so long "as a notice of hearing specifying [the time and date of the initial removal hearing]" is later sent, 922 F.3d at 112—it cannot save Respondents in this case. Why? In Banegas Gomez, the revised notice was provided before the immigration court took the relevant action—namely held the hearing where removal was decided. See id. But here, the arrest warrant was issued and executed while the initial NTA was invalid—it was only cured after the fact, not before the actions for which jurisdiction was necessary took place. See Gopie v. Lyons, No. 25-CV-5229, 2025 WL 3167130, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2025). Lastly, Respondents' letter fails to provide any additional factual information about the circumstances of Petitioner's arrest—or identify the legal basis for his detention. Respondents are directed to release Petitioner by 11:00 P.M. today, June 19, 2026, and file confirmation of the same on the docket. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 6/19/2026. (LMR)

Jun 19, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO AND Order(Other)