Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-01663

#1

Aug 24, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (verified) (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number APAWDC-9826652), filed by Mojammal Hoq Biplob. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Green, Brian) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#2

Aug 24, 2026

MOTION for Order to Show Cause by Mojammal Hoq Biplob. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Green, Brian) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

Aug 25, 2026

Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand added. (bjr)

#3

Aug 27, 2026

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 8/27/2026. (tmc) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#4

Aug 27, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE and Certificate of Compliance of Service by Mojammal Hoq Biplob re 3 Case Management Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Email to U.S. Attorney's Office) (Green, Brian) (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#5

Aug 28, 2026

ORDER DENYING 2 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Petitioner requests an order requiring Respondents to show cause why his 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. Petitioner invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2243, which provides that "[a] court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." Section 2243 further provides that "[t]he writ, or order to show cause... shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed." Courts within this Circuit have found that Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255 Proceedings ("Habeas Rules"), applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b) of the Habeas Rules, provides more flexible time limits for ordering an answer and supersedes the time limits of § 2243 to the extent there is a conflict. See Alvierez v. Bondi et al., No. 26-532 (JXN), 2026 WL 146013, *1 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2026) (collecting cases). This Court agrees. The Court has issued a case management order directing Petitioners counsel to serve Respondents with the 1 Petition and file a notice of compliance certifying the date and time of service. The order further directs Respondents to answer the 1 Petition following service. Respondents have not yet been served. Thus, Respondents deadline to respond to the 1 Petition has not yet passed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 2 Motion for Order to Show Cause is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 8/28/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (tmc) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#6

Aug 28, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Kristyn Fleming Novak on behalf of LEONARD ODDO, DAVID VENTURELLA. (Novak, Kristyn) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

Aug 28, 2026

Order on Motion to Show Cause

#7

Sep 02, 2026

SCHEDULING ORDER. Response to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus due by 9/10/2026; Reply due 9/15/2026. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 9/2/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (tmc) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

Sep 02, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines AND ~Util - Set Scheduling Order Deadlines

#8

Sep 10, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, filed by LEONARD ODDO, DAVID VENTURELLA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Novak, Kristyn) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#9

Sep 15, 2026

REPLY BRIEF re 8 Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mojammal Hoq Biplob. (Green, Brian) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

#10

Sep 16, 2026

SUPPLEMENT by LEONARD ODDO, DAVID VENTURELLA to 8 Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Attachments: # 1 I-200) (Novak, Kristyn) (Entered: 09/16/2026)

#11

Oct 02, 2026

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before 10/9/26, Respondents shall file a supplemental brief including relevant legal authority, and supporting evidence, on the following issues: (1) Under what statutory authorization was Petitioner originally detained; (2) whether that original statutory authorization for detainment has continued force after Petitioner was paroled; (3) whether Petitioner's parole was properly revoked under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 212.5, including whether any documents served on Petitioner at the time of the 2026 detainment effected revocation of parole; and (4) in light of the answers to the preceding questions, what remedy, if any, is warranted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents' supporting evidence shall include, at a minimum, relevant documents effectuating Petitioner's original detainment and parole in 2022 and later parole revocation and detainment in 2026. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents' submission shall also include Petitioner's unredacted A-number. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 10/16/26, Petitioner shall file a supplemental brief, including relevant legal authority, and supporting evidence, on each of the foregoing issues, including Petitioner's response to Respondents' arguments. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 10/2/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (tmc) (Entered: 10/02/2026)

Oct 02, 2026

Order

#12

Oct 09, 2026

SUPPLEMENT by LEONARD ODDO, DAVID VENTURELLA to 11 Order,,,,,,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4) (Novak, Kristyn) (Entered: 10/09/2026)

#13

Oct 16, 2026

SUPPLEMENT by Mojammal Hoq Biplob to 12 Supplement. (Green, Brian) (Entered: 10/16/2026)

#14

Oct 26, 2026

ORDER DENYING 1 Petition for Habeas Corpus by Mojammal Hoq Biplob. Petitioner, a native and citizen of Bangledesh, is currently detained at Moshannon Valley Correctional Center and requests immediate release from custody. ECF No. 1 at 2, 8. Initially, Respondents asserted that Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), ECF No. 8 at 2, and Petitioner challenged that detention authority based on various alleged defects, e.g., Respondents' failure to comply with the requirements for parole revocation, ECF No. 9 at 47. But, by this point, as he does not appear to dispute, Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). ECF Nos. 12 at 8; 13 at 9, 11; see generally Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 527529 (2021) (describing 8 U.S.C. § 1231 statutory scheme). Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), once ordered removed, the government must remove the noncitizen within a 90-day "removal period." 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). Detention of the noncitizen is mandatory during the removal period. Id. § 1231(a)(2)(A). That removal period begins "on the latest of three dates: (1) the date the order of removal becomes 'administratively final,' (2) the date of the final order of any court that entered a stay of removal, or (3) the date on which the alien is released from non-immigration detention or confinement." Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. at 528 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a). Under some circumstances, detention of the noncitizen may continue after the 90-day removal period in what is called the "post-removal-period." Id. at 528529 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(a)(1)(C), (a)(6), (c)(2)(A)). In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that detention of a noncitizen following a final order of removal is "presumptively reasonable" for a period of six months. 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). But even after that six-month period, detention may continue "until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Id.; see also 8 CFR § 241.13 (Zadvydas procedures). Here, on or about 6/11/2022, Petitioner was detained near the Texas border, determined to be inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and placed in expedited removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. ECF No. 12-1 at 3. On 6/17/2022, Petitioner was paroled under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) pending a credible fear determination in connection with Petitioner's asylum application. ECF No. 12-1 at 3. After several years, on 8/21/2026, Petitioner was detained by ICE. ECF No. 1 at 2. On 9/1/2026, Petitioner was ordered removed after receiving a negative finding in his credible fear interview. ECF No. 12-3 at 23. On 9/17/2026, that order of removal became administratively final when an Immigration Judge ("IJ") affirmed the credible fear determination. ECF No. 12-4; see 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III) (providing IJ review of credible fear determination); id. § 1225(b)(1)(C) (no administrative appeal except for IJ review); id. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii) (no judicial review of credible fear determination); Castro v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422, 42527 (3d Cir. 2016) (describing 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252 statutory schemes). Thus, Petitioner is now subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), with his 90-day removal period beginning on 9/17/2026. Petitioner has been detained for slightly more than one month since the start of his removal period. That is well within the 90-day mandatory detention period prescribed by 8 U.S.C. 1231(a), as well as the 6-month "presumptively reasonable" period set out in Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. A defect, if any, underlying Petitioner's earlier detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) does not undermine his present detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). As to Petitioner's claim under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Court concludes that Petitioner's factual allegations are insufficient to raise a reasonable inference that Respondents violated the APA. See ECF No. 1 at 7. Petitioner has not identified what "final agency action," if any, he purports to challenge and for which "there is no other adequate remedy in court." 5 U.S.C. § 704; see also Arias Gudino v. Lowe, 785 F. Supp. 3d 27, 37 n.3 (M.D. Pa. 2025); Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. 670, 674 (2025) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (explaining that "habeas corpus, not the APA, is the proper vehicle" where habeas corpus provides an "'adequate remedy in a court'" (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 704)). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 1 Petition is DENIED. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 10/26/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (tmc) (Entered: 10/26/2026)

#15

Oct 26, 2026

FINAL JUDGMENT entered consistent with the above order (ECF No. 14). Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 10/26/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (tmc) (Entered: 10/26/2026)

Oct 26, 2026

Order

Oct 26, 2026

Judgment