Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01536

#1

Jul 28, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5918605.), filed by No Given Name Vikas. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit 1) NTA, # 3 Exhibit 2) EOIR Notice of Alien Address, # 4 Exhibit 3) Employment Authorization Card)(Pearson, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

#2

Jul 29, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by No Given Name Vikas.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). SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/29/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

#3

Jul 29, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by No Given Name Vikas 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). SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/29/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

#4

Jul 29, 2026

TEXT ORDER withdrawing Docket Item 3 . Prior order entered in error. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/29/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

#5

Jul 29, 2026

TEXT ORDER: 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 8/5/2026, 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. The petitioner also argues that he was arrested without a warrant and therefore is entitled to immediate release. In Last Name Unknown v. Ball, 2026 WL 2096666, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 21, 2026), this Court held that a petitioner whose detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) was entitled to immediate release when a warrant had not been obtained for his arrest. Accordingly, the respondents also shall SHOW CAUSE on or before 8/5/2026 why the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release under this Court's decision in Last Name Unknown, including providing a copy of any warrant that the respondents say was issued. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/29/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

Jul 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. 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. (KKR)

Jul 29, 2026

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

#6

Jul 31, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Adam A. Khalil, appearing on behalf of Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

#7

Jul 31, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 5 Text Order,,,,,,,,, filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

#8

Jul 31, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by No Given Name Vikas On 7/29/2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of this Court's decision in Last Name Unknown v. Ball, 2026 WL 2096666 (W.D.N.Y. July 21, 2026), "the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release... [,] including providing a copy of any warrant that the respondents say was issued." Docket Item 5 . In response, the respondents said that the petitioner's argument that he is entitled to immediate release "should be rejected because immigration officers have the ability to arrest [noncitizens] who are present unlawfully within the United States without an arrest warrant" under 8 U.S.C. § 1357. See Docket Item 7 at 5. But as the Court noted in Last Name Unknown, section 1357 only provides "limited authority to conduct warrantless arrests." See 2026 WL 2096666, at *2 (quoting Sisalema Rea v. Ball, 2026 WL 1959270, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 2, 2026)). More specifically, "to lawfully arrest a noncitizen who falls under section 1226(a) without a warrant, the arresting official must have reason to believe that the noncitizen is (1) present in the United States illegally and (2) likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained." See id. at *3. Accordingly, on or before 8/5/2026, the respondents shall supplement their response, Docket Item 7, to identify how and why the arresting official in this instance had reason to believe that the petitioner was both present in the United States illegally and likely to escape before a warrant could have been obtained. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/31/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

#9

Aug 04, 2026

Letter filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella re warrant for Petitioner's arrest. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#10

Aug 04, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 9 Letter of Respondents filed by No Given Name Vikas. (Pearson, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#11

Aug 04, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 10 Reply/Response filed by No Given Name Vikas. The respondents may respond to the petitioner's letter by 5:00 PM on 8/5/2026. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/4/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#12

Aug 05, 2026

Letter filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella re timing of issuance of warrant. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#13

Aug 05, 2026

TEXT ORDER: On 7/29/2026, the Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of this Court's decision in Last Name Unknown v. Ball, 2026 WL 2096666 (W.D.N.Y. July 21, 2026), "the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release... [,] including providing a copy of any warrant that the respondents say was issued." See Docket Item 5. In response, the respondents said that the Court should not order the petitioner's immediate release "because immigration officers have the ability to arrest [noncitizens] who are present unlawfully within the United States without an arrest warrant" under 8 U.S.C. § 1357. See Docket Item 7 at 5. But as the Court then noted, section 1357 only provides the limited authority to conduct warrantless arrests in situations where "the arresting official... ha[s] reason to believe that the noncitizen is (1) present in the United States illegally and (2) likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained." See Docket Item 8 (quoting Last Name Unknown, 2026 WL 2096666, at *3). Therefore, the Court ordered the respondents to make a supplemental submission identifying "how and why the arresting official in this instance had reason to believe that the petitioner was both present in the United States illegally and likely to escape before a warrant could have been obtained." Id. In response, the respondents "withdr[e]w their argument that a warrant did not have to issue at the time of arrest due to the possibility of [the p]etitioner's escape" because a warrant had been "issued at the time of arrest." Docket Item 9 at 1. The respondents provided a copy of that warrant, id. at 2, which the petitioner then noted was dated the day after his arrest, see Docket Item 10 at 1-2. Because "there was no warrant at the time of" his arrest, the petitioner argued that he should be immediately release. Id. at 2. After the Court ordered the respondents to respond to that assertion, the respondents confirmed that the warrant had in fact not been issued until the day after the petitioner's arrest. Docket Item 12 . Accordingly, it is clear that the petitioner was arrested before any warrant for his arrest was issued, a "manifestly illegal practice" that "[c]ourts across the country have rejected." See Garcia Lanza v. Noem, 822 F. Supp. 3d 326, 333 & n.6 (E.D.N.Y. 2026) (collecting cases); see also Ramirez Ovando v. Noem, 810 F. Supp. 3d 1209, 1226 (D. Colo. 2025) ("[I]ssuing post hoc warrants once plaintiffs had already been unlawfully arrested does nothing to cure the initial... violation." (italics omitted)). The petitioner is thus entitled to immediate release within 24 hours of the issuance of this order. The respondents may, in their discretion, impose conditions of release. On or before 8/7/2026, the respondents shall file an affidavit attesting to the petitioner's release. Finally, the petitioner also asks that this Court "order that he not be re-detained without adequate notice to him and his counsel" and "an opportunity to be heard at a hearing where the [g]overnment will have the burden of showing that his detention is authorized... and the burden to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that [he] is either a danger to the community or a flight risk." Docket Item 10 at 2. The Court is certainly sympathetic to his concerns. But while the Court has the power to provide a "person exposed to risk of future harm" with "forward-looking, injunctive relief to prevent the harm from occurring," the risk of harm must be "sufficiently imminent and substantial." TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 435 (2021). Here, the petitioner has not provided any basis on which the Court can conclude that his risk of re-detention is "imminent and substantial," and the Court thus DENIES his request for forward-looking injunctive relief. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/5/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 08/05/2026)

#14

Aug 07, 2026

Letter filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella re Petitioner's release. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#15

Aug 10, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 14 Letter filed by Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, Todd Blanche, Philip Rhoney, Michael Ball The respondents have filed a letter, Docket Item 14, indicating that the petitioner was released in compliance with this Court's order, Docket Item 13 . 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 8/10/2026. (ZHM)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 08/10/2026)

#16

Aug 26, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of No Given Name Vikas against David Venturella, Markwayne Mullin, Michael Ball, Philip Rhoney, Todd Blanche. Signed by Andrew W. Moeller, Clerk of Court on 8/26/2026. (TME) (Entered: 08/26/2026)