Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00101

#1

Jan 26, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number APAWDC-9321538), filed by Darwin Silva Cova. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G) (Ngo, Nhu-Y) (Entered: 01/26/2026)

#2

Jan 27, 2026

Remark: Clerical error. Attorney is directed to disregard previous QC message relating to role types. Text-only entry. No PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (rjr) (Entered: 01/27/2026)

Jan 27, 2026

Judge William S. Stickman added. (rjr)

Jan 27, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,. ERROR: Party name entered incorrectly. Names of parties are to be entered exactly as they appear on the initiating document, including party text. CORRECTION FOR FUTURE FILINGS: Attorney is directed to enter party names correctly in all future filings. Party text is to be entered using the party text function during case opening process. See the party naming conventions manual on the Court's website. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FILING AT ISSUE. (rjr)

Jan 27, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,. ERROR: Party roles were incorrect. CORRECTION FOR FUTURE FILINGS: Clerk of Court corrected party roles. Attorney advised that the role types in Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus cases are Petitioner(s) v. Respondent(s). Attorney is directed to enter party roles correctly in all future filings. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FILING AT ISSUE. (rjr)

#3

Jan 28, 2026

Case Management Order

#4

Jan 28, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by DARWIN SILVA COVA re 3 Case Management Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Ngo, Nhu-Y) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#5

Jan 29, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by David Lew on behalf of PAMELA BONDI, KRISTI NOEM, LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE. (Lew, David) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

#6

Jan 29, 2026

CONSENT to Trial/Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge OR District Judge Option, by PAMELA BONDI, KRISTI NOEM, LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE. (Lew, David) (Entered: 01/29/2026)

#7

Jan 30, 2026

SCHEDULING ORDER. Response to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus due by 2/9/2026. Signed by Judge William S. Stickman on 01/30/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (eca) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

Jan 30, 2026

Order Response/Briefing Schedule

#8

Feb 09, 2026

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, filed by PAMELA BONDI, KRISTI NOEM, LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE. (Lew, David) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

#9

Feb 11, 2026

Sealed Order

#10

Feb 11, 2026

Sealed Order

#11

Feb 11, 2026

Order

#12

Feb 21, 2026

Attorney Fees

Feb 23, 2026

Order Response/Briefing Schedule

#16

Mar 24, 2026

Order on Motion for Attorney Fees

#20

May 20, 2026

Enforce

#22

May 27, 2026

ORDER denying 20 Motion to Enforce Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on January 26, 2026, seeking, inter alia, an individualized bond hearing. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Petition on February 11, 2026. The Court ordered Petitioner to be given an individualized bond hearing. A bond hearing was conducted on February 18, 2026. Petitioners counsel asserts that the hearing was conducted by a different immigration judge than had previously been scheduled and that it began over three hours late. At the hearing, the immigration judge accepted evidence offered by Petitioner and heard evidence from both Petitioners counsel and Respondents counsel. Although there was substantial argument about whether Petitioner was the subject of an Interpol notice, the immigration judge ultimately denied bond based on her finding that Petitioner poses a flight risk. Petitioner's Motion to Enforce takes issue with this determination. He argues that the immigration judge did not afford him an adequate individualized hearing. Petitioner contends that the immigration judge did not properly consider and weigh the evidence that he presented. The Court has examined the transcript of the hearing and does not find that it contains any indicia of a mere rubber stamp or that it otherwise fell beneath the mandates of the Constitution or this Courts Order. The immigration judge explained that she did not base her decision on the Interpol notice contested between the parties, but on flight risk. While noting that Petitioner presented evidence of extended family in the United States, she concluded that other evidence pointed to his being a flight risk. Specifically, she noted: No immediate family with legal status, a residency less than two years. I dont see proof of steady employment, leases or deeds to establish residency. [ECF No. 21-3, p. 14].Petitioner may disagree with the outcome of his court-ordered hearing, but the process was not deficient. The Court lacks jurisdiction, therefore, to upset the determination of the immigration judge. Under 8 U.S.C. 1226(e), no court may set aside any action or decision regarding detention or release of any alien. The Court does not have the authority to sit as an appellate court over the determination of the immigration judge and to question his substantive determination on bond. This Court does not have jurisdiction to offer the relief requested by Petitioner. The Motion to Enforce is denied. Signed by Judge William S. Stickman on 5/27/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (Stickman, William) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

May 27, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce