Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01942

#1

Sep 08, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5976846.), filed by Jose Efrain Guaman Guallpa. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A - Automated Case Information, # 3 Exhibit B - Detainee Locator)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

#2

Sep 09, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jose Efrain Guaman Guallpa.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. 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. And in Mata Velasquez v. Kurzdorfer, 794 F. Supp. 3d 128 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), this Court concluded "that both common sense and the words of the statute require parole revocation to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and that a decision to revoke parole must attend to the reasons an individual [noncitizen] received parole." Id. at 146 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It appears that the holdings of Barbosa da Cunha, Alvarez Ortiz, Cabrera Martinez, and/or Mata Velasquez may apply to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 9/16/2026, 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. Additionally, 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. And in Loaeza v. Bausch, 2026 WL 2150155 (W.D.N.Y. July 27, 2026), Judge Vacca explained that "[w]ithout a valid [Notice to Appear] in place, removal proceedings are not pending, and [the r]espondents have no authority to make an arrest or effectuate detention." Id. at *1-2. Accordingly, to the extent an unlawful arrest is alleged in the petition, the respondents also shall SHOW CAUSE on or before 9/16/2026 why the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release under Last Name Unknown and/or Loaeza, including providing a copy of any warrant or Notice to Appear that the respondents say was issued. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 9/9/2026. (DDC) Chambers emailed a copy of this text order and the petition to usanyw-immigration-habeas@usdoj.gov. (Entered: 09/09/2026)

Sep 09, 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)

Sep 09, 2026

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

#3

Sep 15, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Brendan T. Cullinane, appearing on behalf of Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Cullinane, Brendan) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

#4

Sep 15, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D)(Cullinane, Brendan) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

#5

Sep 15, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jose Efrain Guaman Guallpa. On September 9, 2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of the Second Circuit's decision in 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 1-2 (quoting 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.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 2. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Alvarez Ortiz and 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 September 23, 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 9/15/2026. (RFI) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

#6

Sep 23, 2026

STATUS REPORT by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Cullinane, Brendan) (Entered: 09/23/2026)

#7

Sep 24, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 6 Status Report filed by Markwayne Mullin, Todd Blanche, Philip Rhoney, Michael Ball, David Venturella. The government shall file a further status report by 9/25/2026. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 9/24/2026. (AJM) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#8

Sep 25, 2026

NOTICE by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella (Notice of Bond Hearing) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cullinane, Brendan) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

#9

Sep 25, 2026

MOTION seeking an Order granting Immediate Release by Jose Efrain Guaman Guallpa.(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 09/25/2026)

#10

Sep 28, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 9 MOTION seeking an Order granting Immediate Release filed by Jose Efrain Guaman Guallpa. Response due by 10/5/2026. Oral argument will be scheduled at a later date. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 9/28/2026. (RFI) (Entered: 09/28/2026)