Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00302

#1

Feb 22, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee $5, receipt number APAWDC-9380152), filed by ALBERT KENESHOV. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order) (Aliabadi, Mana) (Entered: 02/22/2026)

#2

Feb 22, 2026

MOTION for attorney MANA ALIABADI to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $70, Receipt # APAWDC-9380154) by ALBERT KENESHOV. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order) (Aliabadi, Mana) (Entered: 02/22/2026)

Feb 23, 2026

Judge Stephanie L. Haines added. (rjr)

#3

Feb 24, 2026

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

#4

Feb 25, 2026

Case Management Order

#5

Feb 25, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER by ALBERT KENESHOV re 4 Case Management Order,,,,, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Aliabadi, Mana) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#6

Feb 26, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Leo Ivory on behalf of LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE. (Ivory, Michael) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#7

Mar 30, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Ivory, Michael) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

#8

Apr 03, 2026

REPLY BRIEF re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by ALBERT KENESHOV. (Aliabadi, Mana) Modified text on 4/6/2026 to correct linkage. (rjr) (Entered: 04/03/2026)

Apr 06, 2026

CLERK'S NOTICE OF CORRECTION re 8 Reply Brief. ERROR: Document incorrectly linked. CORRECTION FOR FUTURE FILINGS: Filer advised to link filing to related document(s) in future filings. Clerk added link to appropriate document(s). THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FILING AT ISSUE. (rjr)

#9

May 14, 2026

Order

#10

May 14, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)

#11

May 22, 2026

NOTICE to the Court by LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE re 9 Order,,,,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Ivory, Michael) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#12

Jun 23, 2026

Enforce

#13

Jun 24, 2026

ORDER Response/Briefing Schedule- Upon Petitioner having filed a Motion to Enforce Court Order (ECF No. 12), the Court hereby orders that Respondents shall file a response on or before July 8, 2026. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 6/24/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (cry) (Entered: 06/24/2026)

Jun 24, 2026

Order Response/Briefing Schedule

#14

Jun 25, 2026

Withdraw as Attorney

#15

Jun 26, 2026

Proposed Order re 14 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney by ALBERT KENESHOV. (Aliabadi, Mana) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#16

Jun 26, 2026

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

Jun 26, 2026

CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re 14 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . ERROR: Filer did not attach a Proposed Order as required by LCvR 7. CORRECTION: Filer to submit a proposed order using the Proposed Order event. Filer is to link the Proposed Order to the relevant motion in the event. (kss)

#17

Jul 07, 2026

RESPONSE to Motion re 12 MOTION to Enforce Court Order filed by LEONARD ODDO, MICHAEL T. ROSE. (Ivory, Michael) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

#18

Jul 14, 2026

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Enforce. The Court granted Petitioners Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordered that he be provided an individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 1226. He received the ordered hearing. The immigration judge determined that Petitioner posed a flight risk and denied bond. Petitioner now moves to enforce the Courts Order. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the Immigration Judge failed to properly weigh the evidence and denied bond based solely on the existence of a pending appeal. As a preliminary matter, 8 U.S.C. 1226(e) specifically provides, in relevant part, that no court may set aside any action or decision regarding detention or release of any alien. This divests district courts of the jurisdiction to reexamine the bond decisions of immigration judges. Nevertheless, two (unpublished) decisions of the Third Circuit have held that a district court may examine an aliens bond hearing to determine whether it fell below the minimum standards of due process. See: Quinteras v. Warden Pike Cty. Corr. Fac., 784 Fed. Appx. 75 (3d Cir. 2019), and Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cty. Corr. Fac. 2022 WL 574624 (3d Cir. 2022). In this case there is no question that Petitioner received a bond hearing, as ordered. There is, likewise, no question that the stated reason for denial of bond was the determination that he poses a flight risk. This determination is unreviewable under 8 USC 1226(e). Petitioner does not pose any challenge that could be construed as one to the minimal compliance of the hearing with the minimum requirement of due process. The Court holds that there is no merit to Petitioners Motion. It has no jurisdiction to review the substantive determination of the immigration judges and sees no violation of due process. The Motion to Enforce Court Order is denied. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 7/14/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (cry) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

Jul 14, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce

#19

Jul 17, 2026

REPLY to 17 Response to Motion, filed by ALBERT KENESHOV. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (rjr) (Entered: 07/17/2026)

#20

Jul 21, 2026

TEXT ORDER - On July 14, 2026, the Court denied Petitioner's Motion to Enforce Court Order. ECF No. 18 . Petitioner thereafter filed an untimely Reply in further support of that Motion. ECF No. 19 . To the extent the Reply may be construed as requesting reconsideration of the Court's prior ruling or renewed enforcement relief, that request is DENIED. Even if considered, the Reply does not identify a procedural defect warranting a new bond hearing. Petitioner principally argues that the immigration judge gave insufficient weight to evidence concerning his sponsor, prospective employment, community support, and proposed residence, and improperly considered the procedural posture of his immigration proceedings. Those arguments challenge the immigration judge's discretionary weighing of the evidence. They do not establish that Petitioner was denied the opportunity to present evidence and argument or that the immigration judge failed to make an individualized flight-risk determination. See Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cty. Corr. Fac., 2022 WL 574624 (3d Cir. 2022). Nor did the Court's prior Order require the immigration judge to discuss separately every item of evidence in a written custody determination. Because Petitioner has not shown that the bond hearing failed to comply with the Court's Order or with constitutional due process, no further relief is warranted. Signed by Judge Stephanie L. Haines on 7/21/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (dlg) (Entered: 07/21/2026)

Jul 21, 2026

Order