Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01312

#1

Jun 26, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5880864.), filed by MAURICIO ANTONIO PICAHSACA AGUAIZA. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Hartman, Theodore) (Attachment 1 replaced on 6/29/2026) (MMG). (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#2

Jun 29, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mauricio Antonio Pichasaca Aguaiza 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). In Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 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 da Cunha, 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 7/7/2026, 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. In their submission, the respondents also shall respond to the petitioner's assertion that his immediate release is justified because his detention without a warrant is unlawful under section 1226(a). SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 6/29/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 06/29/2026)

Jun 29, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. Notification to chambers of online civil opening. (MMG)

Jun 29, 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)

Jun 29, 2026

E-Filing Notification re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus: The Court replaced Attachment 1 to fit the document to the page. Modified on 6/29/2026 (MMG).

Jun 29, 2026

E-Filing Notification re E-Filing Notification re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus: The docket text was modified to correct the reason the document was replaced. (MMG)

#3

Jul 07, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Chelsea A. Cruz, appearing on behalf of James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

#4

Jul 07, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,,, filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. (Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

#5

Jul 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mauricio Antonio Pichasaca Aguaiza On 6/29/2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of the Second Circuit's decision in da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026), and this Court's decision in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), "(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." Docket Item 2 . In response, the "[r]espondents acknowledge" that the Second Circuit recently held that "'[s]ection 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to... noncitizens,'" such as the petitioner, "'who are present in the United States after entering the country without inspection and admission, and who were not apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter.' Rather, the court ruled, [s]ection 1226(a) applies." Docket Item 4 at 2 (quoting da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 69). The respondents have reserved all rights, and this Court appreciates their efforts "to conserve judicial and party resources" by not rehashing issues that this Court and the Second Circuit already have decided. See id. at 1-2. Turning to the question of relief, the respondents argue that the burden of proof at a bond hearing under section 1226(a) should be on the petitioner, however, they do not distinguish this case from Alvarez Ortiz. See id. at 2. For his part, the petitioner says that, because he was detained without a warrant, immediate release is the proper remedy. See Docket Item 1 ¶¶ 35, 44-45. On this, the Court finds that further briefing is necessary for its consideration of the petitioner's request for immediate release. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Alvarez Ortiz and da Cunha, the petition is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks a bond hearing and the respondents are ORDERED to provide the petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven calendar days of the date of this order. At that hearing, the government shall bear the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk. At that bond hearing, the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay. If the respondents fail to provide such a hearing within seven calendar days, they shall immediately release the petitioner. On or before 7/15/2026, the respondents shall file a status report confirming that the petitioner has either been granted a bond hearing in compliance with this order or released from custody. On or before 7/14/2026, the respondents shall respond to the petitioner's argument regarding immediate release. The petitioner may reply on or before 7/20/2026. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/7/2026.(ZHM) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

#6

Jul 13, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 5 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 07/13/2026)

#7

Jul 15, 2026

NOTICE by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney re 5 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Order of the Immigration Judge)(Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

#8

Jul 27, 2026

TEXT ORDER: On 7/7/2026, the Court granted the petition in this matter "to the extent it s[ought] a bond hearing" and ordered the respondents "to provide the petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven calendar days of the date of this order." Docket Item 5 . At that bond hearing, the government was to "bear the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk," and the immigration judge was to "consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay." Id. As to the argument raised by the petitioner, Mauricio Antonio Pichasaca Aguaiza, that his arrest without a warrant merited his immediate release, the Court concluded that further briefing was necessary. See id. The respondents now have filed a status report, Docket Item 7, indicating that an immigration judge held a bond hearing in compliance with that order but that the immigration found that the government had met its burden on risk of flight, see Docket Item 7-1 at 1. The respondents also have responded to the petitioner's warrant argument, saying both that Pichasaca Aguaiza "was provided with a warrant for his arrest at the scene of his arrest" and that even if a warrant had not been issued, the statutory exception — 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) — to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)'s warrant requirement would apply to his arrest. See Docket Item 6 at 1. Pichasaca Aguaiza has not replied, and the time to do so now has expired. See Docket Item 5 . It therefore appears that contrary to the assertions in his petition, Pichasaca Aguaiza's arrest was not warrantless. Accordingly, the Court will thus deny his request for immediate release unless he SHOWS CAUSE by 8/10/2026 why it should not do so. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/27/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

#9

Aug 11, 2026

TEXT ORDER: On 7/27/2026, this Court told the petitioner, Mauricio Pichasaca Aguaiza, "that contrary to the assertions in his petition," it appeared to the Court that his "arrest was not warrantless." See Docket Item 8 . Accordingly, the Court said that it would deny his request for immediate release unless he showed cause "why it should not do so." Id. Pichasaca Aguaiza has not responded to that order, and the time to do so now has expired. See id. Pichasaca Aguaiza's request for immediate release is therefore DENIED. If Pichasaca Aguaiza believes that there are any further issues properly before this Court, within 14 days of this order he may show cause why this case should not be closed. If he does not do so, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close this case without further order. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/11/2026. (ZHM)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 08/11/2026)

#10

Aug 26, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Mauricio Antonio Pichasaca Aguaiza against James Bausch, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons. Signed by Andrew W. Moeller, Clerk of Court on 8/26/2026. (TME) (Entered: 08/26/2026)