Western District of New York • 6:25-cv-06787

#1

Dec 17, 2025

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5658704.), filed by Lovepreet Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 12/17/2025)

#2

Dec 18, 2025

TEXT ORDER re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. This Court has issued Decision and Orders in Quituizaca Quituisaca v. Bondi, et al., No. 25-cv-6527, 2025 WL 3264440 (W.D.N.Y Nov. 24, 2025) and Lieogo v. Freden, et al., No. 6:25-CV-06615 EAW, 2025 WL 3290694 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025), finding 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. Accordingly, Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before December 26, 2025, why, in light of those decisions, the petition in this case should not be granted to the extent that it seeks an order requiring that Petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that 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, Petitioner's ability to pay.In addition, the Court temporarily enjoins Respondents from transferring Petitioner outside this District pending a resolution of the petition because the Court finds that Petitioner's presence in the District is necessary to support the Court's resolution of the issues in the petition, including because it will enable Petitioner to fully participate in these proceedings and maintain adequate access to legal counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("Unless the application for the writ and the return present only issues of law the person to whom the writ is directed shall be required to produce at the hearing the body of the person detained. The applicant or the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set forth in the return or allege any other material facts."). This temporary order extends to the transfer of Petitioner outside the country so as to maintain the status quo and solely so that the Court can make an informed decision about its authority to issue relief and whether any relief that it has the power to issue should be granted.Further, the Clerk's Office is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this Text Order electronically via a Notice of Electronic Filing to the United States Attorney's Office, Western District of New York at USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 12/18/2025. (MGB)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 12/18/2025)

Dec 18, 2025

Case originally assigned to the Buffalo office. Case is assigned to Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford and the new case number is 25-cv-6787. All future docketing should be entered on the new case number. Notification to Chambers of on-line civil case opening. (JLH)

Dec 18, 2025

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. 636c 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. (JLH)

Dec 18, 2025

Clerk emailed 1 Petition to USANYW-ImmigrationHabeas@usdoj.gov. and regenerated 2 Text Order. (DMK)

#3

Dec 19, 2025

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 12/19/2025)

#4

Dec 22, 2025

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,,,, filed by Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

#5

Dec 22, 2025

ORDER granting 1 Petition to the extent Petitioner seeks a bond hearing. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 12/22/2025. (MGB)

#6

Dec 30, 2025

MOTION to Enforce Judgment by Lovepreet Singh. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Matthew Borowski)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 12/30/2025)

#7

Dec 31, 2025

TEXT ORDER re: 6 Motion to Enforce. Responses to the motion to enforce are due on or before January 7, 2026. Respondents are directed to provide a copy of the audio recording file from the bond hearing, if one exists, before the Immigration Judge with their response and shall then submit the written transcript as soon as practicable thereafter but in no event later than January 12, 2026. Respondents are further advised that if the Court concludes that its Order was not complied with, it will likely order Petitioner's release unless Respondents can establish some valid reason it should not do so. Upon review of the papers, the Court will determine if oral argument is necessary and, if so, will inform the parties of the date and time. Otherwise, the matter will be deemed submitted and decided on the papers. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 12/31/2025. (MGB). (Entered: 12/31/2025)

#8

Jan 07, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 6 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 01/07/2026)

#9

Jan 12, 2026

Letter filed by Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney regarding delay in obtaining transcript. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 01/12/2026)

#10

Jan 12, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 9 Letter Request for Extension of Time. For the reasons set forth in Respondents' letter, the Court grants the requested extension of time to submit the bond hearing transcript. Respondents must submit the bond hearing transcript on or before January 19, 2026. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 01/12/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 01/12/2026)

#11

Jan 14, 2026

Letter filed by Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney with copy of DAR transcript from bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 01/14/2026)

#12

Jan 19, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting 6 Motion to Enforce to the extent that Respondents are directed to provide petitioner Lovepreet Singh ("Singh") a bond hearing consistent with the Order issued by this Court on December 22, 2025. (Dkt. 5 ("the Court's Order")). The Court's Order required a bond hearing at which the government would have the burden to demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, and requiring the Immigration Judge to consider less-restrictive alternatives to detention. (Id. at 2-3). On December 30, 2025, a bond hearing was held before Immigration Judge Eric Schultz ("IJ Schultz"). (Dkt. 11). IJ Schultz concluded that Singh was not a danger, but found that he should be detained based on a risk of flight. In reaching this conclusion, IJ Schultz stated that he was complying with the Court's Order, but he did not. The evidence considered by IJ Schultz in support of his conclusion that the government met its burden of proof with respect to flight relied, in part, on his conclusion that the government had raised a concern whether Singh resided at a fixed address and that concern was not "overcome or rebutted" by Singh. (Id. at 37). This shifted the burden of proof to Singh without the government ever meeting the clear and convincing evidence standard. In addition, IJ Schultz relied on Singh's employment as a truck driver to conclude that he was a risk of flight, suggesting that this was his "biggest concern," and yet he failed to actually consider alternatives to detention (including potentially imposing restrictions on Singh's geographical travels). (Id. at 38-39). IJ Schultz made no reference to alternatives to detention when initially announcing his decision (id. at 30), and only when he read his "short oral decision" did he briefly reference "hypothetically, if there were some type of ankle monitor, there would be a concern because [Singh's] nature of his career at this time involves long-distance interstate commercial driving" (id. at 39). For those reasons, after carefully considering the parties' arguments and reviewing the transcript of the bond hearing (Dkt. 11), the Court concludes that Singh has established that IJ Schultz shifted the burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether his identified address created a risk of flight, and he failed to consider whether alternatives to detention might adequately mitigate the risk of flight. The Court therefore grants the motion to enforce. (Dkt. 6). Within 7 calendar days of the date of this Text Order, the government shall hold a new bond hearing for Singh that complies with this Court's Order of December 22, 2025. (Dkt. 5). At that hearing, the IJ shall address whether the government has established by clear and convincing evidence that there are no non-bond alternatives to detention, such as electronic monitoring with reasonable geographical restrictions, that will sufficiently mitigate the flight risk. Respondents are directed to file a status update with the Court on or before January 30, 2026.Finally, the Court notes that it was not helpful that counsel for Singh refused to consider making a request for adjournment at the initial bond hearing when IJ Schultz stated that he had not had sufficient time to considered Singh's filed evidence. An adjournment may have eliminated the necessity of filing this motion to enforce. To be clear, this Court is not second-guessing IJ Schultz's position that the evidence had not been filed in a timely manner so that he could consider it.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 01/19/2026. (MGB) (Entered: 01/19/2026)

#13

Jan 24, 2026

Letter filed by Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 01/24/2026)

#14

Jan 26, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On December 22, 2025, the Court granted Petitioner's petition (Dkt. 1) to the extent it seeks a bond hearing (Dkt. 5). On December 30, 2025, Petitioner informed the Court that a bond hearing was held before an immigration judge, but Petitioner argued that the immigration judge did not comply with the Court's Order and moved to enforce that Order. (Dkt. 6). On January 19, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to enforce and directed Respondents to provide Petitioner a bond hearing consistent with the Order issued by this Court on December 22, 2025. (Dkt. 12). On January 24, 2026, Respondents informed the Court that a second bond hearing was held and bond was set. (Dkt. 13). The Court views the issues raised by the petition as now resolved and intends to direct the Clerk's Office to close the case, unless on or before February 2, 2026, either party objects. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 01/26/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#15

Feb 04, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On December 22, 2025, the Court granted Petitioner's petition (Dkt. 1) to the extent it seeks a bond hearing (Dkt. 5). On January 24, 2026, Respondents informed the Court that a bond hearing was held and bond was set. (Dkt. 13). The Court issued a Text Order on January 26, 2026, directing the parties to inform the Court on or before February 2, 2026, if any matters in the petition remained unresolved and to date, nothing has been filed. Accordingly, the Court dismisses any remaining claims in the petition without prejudice and directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 02/04/2026. (JKS)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 02/04/2026)

#16

Feb 05, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Lovepreet Singh against Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney, Tammy Marich, Todd Lyons. Signed by Mary C. Loewenguth, Clerk of Court on 2/5/2026. (DMK) (Entered: 02/05/2026)