Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01548

#1

Jul 28, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5919644.), filed by Edosa Uyi Lawani. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A - I-213, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B - Marriage Certificate, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C - Defensive Asylum Receipt Notice, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D - I-765 Approval Notice, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E - Automated Case Information, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F - A.L. Birth Certificate)(McLean, Siana) (Entered: 07/28/2026)

#2

Jul 29, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Edosa Uyi Lawani 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 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

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

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)

#3

Aug 04, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Adam A. Khalil, appearing on behalf of James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Phillip Rhoney, David Venturella. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#4

Aug 04, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,, filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Phillip Rhoney, David Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Form I-200, Warrant for Arrest of Alien)(Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#5

Aug 04, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Edosa Uyi Lawani On 7/29/2026, 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. at 1-2. In their response, the respondents also say that the petitioner's allegation that he was arrested without a warrant, thus meriting his immediate release, is false and have submitted a copy of the warrant for his arrest. See Docket Item 4 at 7 n.3; Docket Item 4-1. If the petitioner would like to further argue that immediate release is the proper remedy, he may do so by 8/11/2026. 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 8/12/2026, 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 8/4/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 08/04/2026)

#6

Aug 06, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 4 Reply/Response filed by Edosa Uyi Lawani. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit - Statement from Petitioner)(McLean, Siana) (Entered: 08/06/2026)

#7

Aug 06, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 6 Reply/Response filed by Edosa Uyi Lawani In response to this Court's order, see Docket Item 5, the petitioner argues that "he should be afforded immediate release from custody" because he was not properly served with a warrant when he was arrested, see Docket Item 6 at 2. The petitioner, however, does not provide any authority for his argument that the failure to properly serve him with a warrant merits his immediate release. Accordingly, if the petitioner would like the Court to consider this argument, he shall make a supplemental submission by 8/11/2026 with authority supporting the proposition that the failure to properly serve a warrant entitles an immigration detainee to immediate release from custody. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/6/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 08/06/2026)

#8

Aug 07, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Phillip Rhoney, David Venturella re Petitioner's argument about not receiving a copy of the warrant. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#9

Aug 12, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Phillip Rhoney, David Venturella re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/12/2026)

#10

Aug 14, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 9 Letter filed by Markwayne Mullin, Phillip Rhoney, Todd Blanche, David Venturella, James Bausch The respondents have filed a letter, Docket Item 9, indicating that an immigration judge held a bond hearing in compliance with this Court's order, Docket Item 6, and that the petitioner was ordered released on bond. If the petitioner believes there are any further issues properly before this Court, including the immediate release argument on which the Court invited further briefing, 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 8/14/2026. (ZHM)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 08/14/2026)