Eastern District of New York • 2:25-cv-07018

#1

Dec 22, 2025

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Shuo Wang filing fee $ 5, receipt number ANYEDC-19749160, filed by Shuo Wang. Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes,, (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Memorandum in Support MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF Emergency Petition, # 3 Affidavit in Support DECLARATION OF GUOFENG LI with Exhibits 1-8, # 4 Proposed Order Proposed Order to Show Cause) (Li, Guofeng) Modified on 12/22/2025 (SMF). (Entered: 12/22/2025)

#2

Dec 22, 2025

Proposed Summons. Re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Shuo Wang (Li, Guofeng) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

#3

Dec 22, 2025

Proposed Summons. Re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Shuo Wang (Li, Guofeng) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

#4

Dec 22, 2025

Proposed Summons. Re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Shuo Wang (Li, Guofeng) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

#5

Dec 22, 2025

This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (CV) (Entered: 12/22/2025)

#6

Dec 22, 2025

This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (SMF) (Main Document 6 replaced on 12/22/2025) (SMF). (Entered: 12/22/2025)

Dec 22, 2025

Your proposed summons was not issued for one of the following reasons: The full case caption must appear on the summons if it does not fit must attach a rider., Please correct and resubmit using Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (SMF)

Dec 22, 2025

Order(Other)

Dec 22, 2025

Quality Control Check - Summons

Dec 22, 2025

Case Assigned to Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (SMF)

Dec 22, 2025

ORDER: The Court does not proceed via order to show cause, and so the order to show cause is denied as moot. Respondents must file a response to the writ—including any legal or factual arguments why the writ should not be granted—by December 24, 2025 and Petitioner may file any reply brief by December 26, 2025. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 12/22/2025. (LOG)

Dec 22, 2025

ORDER: To preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See, e.g., Loc. 1814, Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. New York Shipping Ass'n, Inc., 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992) ("Once the district court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and the parties to, the litigation, the All Writs Act [28 U.S.C. § 1651] authorizes a federal court to protect that jurisdiction") (quotations and citation omitted); Garcia-Izquierdo v. Gartner, No. 04-CV-7377, 2004 WL 2093515, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 17, 2004) (observing that, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, a district court "may order that a petitioner's deportation be stayed when a stay is necessary to preserve the Court's jurisdiction of the case"); Khalil v. Joyce, 771 F. Supp. 3d 268, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (barring the government from removing petitioner from the United States until the Court could address his claim); cf. Michael v. I.N.S., 48 F.3d 657, 661-62 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that the All Writs Act provides a federal court of appeals reviewing a final removal order with a basis to stay removal). And in addition, in light of Petitioner's interests in participating in further proceedings before this Court and in maintaining adequate access to legal counsel through these proceedings, it is further ORDERED that Petitioner shall not be transferred except to a facility within this District or the Southern District of New York, absent further order of this Court. See Ozturk v. Trump, 779 F. Supp. 3d 462, 496 (D. Vt. 2025) (ordering petitioner's transfer from Louisiana to Vermont due, in part, to her pending habeas petition), stay and mandamus denied, Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 403 (2d Cir. 2025). So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 12/22/2025. (LOG)

Dec 22, 2025

Case Assigned/Reassigned

#7

Dec 23, 2025

Proposed Summons. Re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Shuo Wang (Li, Guofeng) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

#8

Dec 23, 2025

Proposed Summons. Re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Shuo Wang (Li, Guofeng) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

#9

Dec 23, 2025

Proposed Summons. Re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Shuo Wang (Li, Guofeng) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

#10

Dec 23, 2025

Summons Issued as to Kenneth Genalo, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (NF) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

#11

Dec 23, 2025

Summons Issued as to Kristi Noem, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (NF) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

#12

Dec 23, 2025

Summons Issued as to Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (NF) (Entered: 12/23/2025)

#13

Dec 24, 2025

Letter

#14

Dec 24, 2025

Letter

Dec 24, 2025

Order(Other)

Dec 24, 2025

ORDER: The Government has filed an opposition to Petitioner's writ that suggests that the sole basis for Petitioner's detention is 8 U.S.C. § 1225, despite the fact that Petitioner has been in the United States since August 2023. (Resp'ts' Letter in Opp'n to Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus dated Dec. 24, 2025, Dkt. No. 13 at 1). The Government's position is that someone is subject to removal under Section 1225 on an expedited basis, as someone who has not yet "arrived" in the United States, notwithstanding that they have been living here for months, if not years. Court after court, judge after judge, in district after district has rejected this argument. See Lopez Benitez v. Francis, 795 F. Supp. 3d 475, 487–91 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) ("[T]he line historically drawn between sections 1225 and 1226, which mak[es] sense of their text and the overall statutory scheme, is that section 1225 governs detention of non-citizens seeking admission into the country, whereas section 1226 governs detention of non-citizens already in the country. . . . This Court has similarly been unable to identify any authority to support Respondents expansive interpretation of § 1225(b)." (quotations omitted)); Padilla Molina v. Deleon, No. 25-CV-6526, 2025 WL 3718728, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2025) ("This Court agrees with Petitioner that he is detained subject to Section 1226, not Section 1225. In so holding, the Court joins the hundreds of district court decisions that have rejected Respondents' expansive interpretation of Section 1225 as inconsistent with the plain text and overall structure of the INA.") (collecting cases); Ulloa Montoya v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-6363, 2025 WL 3718694, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2025) (same). The Government offers no new gloss on this argument that has been rejected over and over. See Rodriguez-Acurio v. Almodovar, No. 25-CV-6065, 2025 WL 3314420, at *23 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2025) ("[T]he administration's new position that all noncitizens who came into the United States illegally, but since have been living in the United States, must be detained until their removal proceedings are completed—has been challenged in at least 362 cases in federal district courts. The challengers have prevailed, either on a preliminary or final basis, in 350 of those cases decided by over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty different courts spread across the United States." (quoting Barco Mercado v. Francis, No. 25-CV-6582, 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025))). The Court incorporates the arguments of judges in this District and its sister courts and grants the writ—because at its core, detention and attempted expedited removal under § 1225 violates due process guarantees, and is inapplicable and inappropriate for individuals who have lived in the United States as long as Petitioner has. The writ 1 is granted. Respondents are directed to effectuate Petitioner's release by 5:00 PM on 12/25/2025 and file a letter on the docket confirming Petitioner's release by that time. The Court concludes that the petition's other bases for granting the writ, including the APA, are now moot and unnecessary to resolve. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 12/24/2025. (LMR) Modified on 12/24/2025 (SGC). Modified on 12/29/2025 (EM).

Dec 24, 2025

ORDER: Respondents' letter in opposition to the petition 13 incorporates by reference arguments made in Respondents' brief in opposition in case No. 25-cv-6597. Respondents are directed to file a copy of that opposition brief on the docket by 12/24/2025. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 12/24/2025. (LMR)

#15

Dec 25, 2025

Letter

#16

Dec 29, 2025

NOTICE of Appearance by Elliot M. Schachner on behalf of Pamela Bondi, Kenneth Genalo, Kristi Noem (aty to be noticed) (Schachner, Elliot) (Entered: 12/29/2025)

Dec 29, 2025

ORDER: The Court's Order dated December 24, 2025 is amended to add the following additional provision: Respondents are enjoined from detaining or removing Petitioner absent further direction from this Court. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 12/29/2025. (LMR)

Dec 29, 2025

ORDER: Petitioner is directed to file a letter indicating whether there is any remaining basis to keep this case open by 1/05/2026. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 12/29/2025. (LMR)

Dec 29, 2025

Order(Other)

#17

Jan 05, 2026

Attorney Fees

Jan 07, 2026

Order(Other)

Jan 07, 2026

ORDER: Any response by the Government to Petitioner's motion for attorney fees 17 should be filed by 02/06/2026. So Ordered by Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 1/7/2026. (LOG)