Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01423

#1

Jul 15, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5901046.), filed by BRYAN JOSE BLANCO CARRERO. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Hartman, Theodore) (Attachment 1 replaced on 7/16/2026) (MMG). (Entered: 07/15/2026)

#2

Jul 16, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Bryan Jose Blanco Carrero. 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 Barbosa 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 7/23/2026, 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 "no warrant for his arrest, as required under [s]ection 1226(a), had been properly issued." Docket Item 1 ¶ 4. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/16/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

Jul 16, 2026

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

Jul 16, 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. 636(c) 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)

Jul 16, 2026

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

#3

Jul 22, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Adam A. Khalil, appearing on behalf of James Bausch, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

#4

Jul 22, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,,, filed by James Bausch, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

#5

Jul 23, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Bryan Jose Blanco Carrero. On July 16,2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of this Court's decision in Cabrera Martinez v. Marich, 816 F. Supp. 3d 356 (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[d] that this Court's prior ruling [in Cabrera Martinez] concern[ed] a similar challenge to the government policy or practice at issue in this case, and if the Court follows that prior ruling, it would control the result in this case." Docket Item 4 at 2. The respondents have reserved all rights, including the 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. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Cabrera Martinez, this Court GRANTS the petition and ORDERS 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. 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 July 31, 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. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/23/2026. (RFI) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#6

Jul 31, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Pamela Bondi, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

#7

Aug 03, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 6 Letter filed by Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney, Todd Lyons, James Bausch, Pamela Bondi.The respondents have filed a letter, Docket Item 6, indicating that an immigration judge held a bond hearing in compliance with this Court's order, Docket Item 5, but found that the government met its burden on risk of flight. 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 8/3/2026. (DDC) Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 08/03/2026)