Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01561

#1

Jul 30, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5922221.), filed by Tanvir Ali. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit 1) Order of Release on Recognizance, # 3 Exhibit 2) Work Authorization Card, # 4 Exhibit 3) NY Driver License)(Pearson, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/30/2026)

#2

Jul 31, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Tanvir Ali. 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 8/7/2026, 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. 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 8/7/2026 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.The petitioner also argues that the government "could not have released [him] on his own recognizance or an order of supervision unless [it] concluded that he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community[, and t]here has been no basis for any change in that assessment." The respondents also shall address this argument in their response. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/31/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

Jul 31, 2026

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

Jul 31, 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. (ARS)

#3

Aug 07, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Chelsea A. Cruz, appearing on behalf of Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#4

Aug 07, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#5

Aug 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Tanvir Ali.On 7/31/2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of the Second Circuit's decision in Barbosa 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 Barbosa 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.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 4-5. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Alvarez Ortiz and Barbosa da Cunha, 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 8/17/2026, 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 8/7/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#6

Aug 14, 2026

NOTICE by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella re 5 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,, of Rescheduled Bond Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Rescheduled Custody Redetermination Hearing)(Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

#7

Aug 17, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 6 Notice (Other) filed by Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, Todd Blanche, David Venturella, Michael Ball. In light of the petitioner's request for a continuance of his bond hearing, the respondents shall file an additional status report on or before 8/19/2026. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/17/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 08/17/2026)

#8

Aug 19, 2026

NOTICE by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella re 7 Text Order, of Bond Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Order of the Immigration Judge)(Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 08/19/2026)

#9

Aug 20, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 8 Notice (Other) filed by Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, Todd Blanche, David Venturella, Michael Ball.The respondents have notified the Court that an immigration judge held a bond hearing in compliance with this Court's order, Docket Item 5, and that the petitioner was ordered released on bond. Docket Items 8 and 8-1. 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 8/20/2026. (DDC)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#10

Sep 04, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Tanvir Ali against David Venturella, Markwayne Mullin, Michael Ball, Philip Rhoney, Todd Blanche. Signed by Andrew W. Moeller, Clerk of Court on 9/4/2026. (CGJ) (Entered: 09/04/2026)