Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-00332

#1

Feb 24, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5728148.), filed by Mehmet Can Asker. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit)(Ramini, Vilena) (Entered: 02/24/2026)

Feb 24, 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. 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. (TMK)

Feb 24, 2026

Case Assigned to Hon. Meredith A. Vacca. Notification to Chambers of on-line civil case opening. (TMK)

#2

Feb 26, 2026

TEXT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on February 24, 2026, while being held as a civil immigration detainee at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. ECF No. 1. Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443-47 (2004). Among other things, Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus requiring that Respondents release him immediately. ECF No. 1.28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that "[a] court entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted." Further, in light of the Court's prior orders on this issue, including its decision granting relief in Da Cunha v. Freden et al., 25-CV-6532-MAV, 2025 WL 3280575 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025), Respondents are hereby:ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of this order why the Petitioner's requested relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should not be granted, including through citations to supporting authority and applicable sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, supplemented as possible by copies of the Notice to Appear served on Petitioner, the warrant to arrest Petitioner, any other relevant exhibits helpful to resolution of this Petition, and a supporting declaration as necessary; and it is further, ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forthwith serve a copy of the Petition, ECF No. 1, and a copy of 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; and it is furtherORDERED that Petitioner shall have 7 days after service of Respondents' return to file a written response.Following receipt of the parties' papers, the Court will determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. See Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. In that regard, the Court observes that 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that "[u]nless 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," as "the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set forth in the return or allege any other material facts." Accordingly, to facilitate the expeditious resolution of this matter, it is furtherORDERED that Respondents refrain from transferring Petitioner out of the United States until after the Court determines whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 02/26/2026. (JCL)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#3

Mar 16, 2026

TEXT ORDER. The Clerk of Court completed service of the petition on March 16, 2026. Accordingly, Respondents' return is due within 14 days of the date of this text order. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 3/16/2026. (MVP) (Entered: 03/16/2026)

Mar 16, 2026

Remark: Clerk emailed 1 Petition to USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov. (TMK)

#4

Mar 25, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#5

Mar 25, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 03/25/2026)

#6

Apr 02, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 5 Reply/Response TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE filed by Mehmet Can Asker. (Ramini, Vilena) (Entered: 04/02/2026)

#7

Apr 14, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting Petitioner's request for a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge [ECF No. 1]. The Court finds no Constitutional violation in Petitioner bearing the burden of proof at the initial bond hearing to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Immigration Judge that he is not a danger to the community or a flight risk.On February 24, 2026, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus contending, inter alia, that he is being unlawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that he is entitled to release or a bond hearing. ECF No. 1. Respondents filed a response on March 25, 2026, conceding that this case shared a common question of law with the Court's decision in Da Cunha v. Freden, No. 25-CV-6532-MAV, 2025 WL 3280575 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025), and that the Court's resolution of the question in Da Cunha controlled the results in the instant case should the Court adhere to its prior reasoning. ECF No. 5. In Da Cunha, the Court considered whether a petitioner who had been present in the country for a period of years and was not actively seeking lawful entry through inspection by an immigration officer was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) or 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The Court found that the petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and was therefore entitled to an initial bond hearing under existing federal regulations. Da Cunha, 2025 WL 3280575, at *7.In reply, Petitioner argues that the Government must bear the burden at his initial bond hearing. ECF No. 6. The Court disagrees. After weighing the factors set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), the Court holds that the Due Process Clause does not require the Government to bear the burden under the particular circumstances of this case. See Barry v. Freden, No. 25-CV-6803-MAV, 2026 WL 230012, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2026) (finding no Due Process violation where the first Mathews factor weighed slightly in favor of petitioner due to a relatively short period of confinement at the time he filed the petition, the second factor was neutral, and the third factor weighed in favor of the respondents); Mahmodi v. Marich, No. 25-CV-6762-MAV, 2026 WL 113473, at *9 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2026) (same). The Court accepts Respondents' position, as argued, that Da Cunha governs, and, for that reason, GRANTS the petition to the extent of a bond hearing. The Court hereby ORDERS that Respondents shall provide Petitioner with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. The Court directs that the initial bond hearing shall be provided "as established by existing federal regulations." Da Cunha v. Freden, 2025 WL 3280575, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025) (quoting Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 306 (2018) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)). If such bond hearing is not conducted within ten (10) days of the date of this order, Petitioner shall be released from custody. Respondents shall file a status report no later than seventeen (17) days from the date of this order confirming that Petitioner has either been granted a bond hearing within ten (10) days or released from custody, in compliance with this Order. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 4/14/2026. (MVP) (Entered: 04/14/2026)

#8

Apr 24, 2026

Letter filed by Philip Rhoney, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 04/24/2026)

#9

Apr 27, 2026

TEXT ORDER: On April 24, 2026, Respondents informed the Court that a bond hearing was held. Dkt. No. 8 . The Court views the issues raised by petition as now resolved and intends to direct the Clerk's Office to close the case, unless on or before May 4, 2026, either party objects. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 4/27/2026. (KSP) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#10

May 04, 2026

Emergency MOTION to Enforce Judgment AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW by Mehmet Can Asker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex 1 - Order Denying Continuance, # 2 Exhibit Ex 2 - Motion for Continuance)(Ramini, Vilena) (Entered: 05/04/2026)

#11

May 06, 2026

TEXT SCHEDULING ORDER: Respondents' response to Petitioner's motion to enforce [ECF No. 10] is due on or before May 19, 2026. Respondents are directed to provide a copy of the audio recording file from the bond hearing before the Immigration Judge with their response. Petitioner's Reply is due May 27, 2026. In his Reply, Petitioner is directed to explain why the procedure for appeal of the Immigration Judge's decision to the BIA under 8 C.F.R. 1003.19(f) is not a sufficient remedy under the circumstances described in his petition. See, e.g., Bohorquez-Valencia v. Ripa, No. 3:25-CV-1383-MMH-LLL, 2026 WL 662980, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2026) (collecting cases, including Bogle v. DuBois, 236 F. Supp. 3d 820, 823 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)) ("Indeed, the BIA might find that the evidence profferedor lack thereofat [petitioner]'s bond hearing did not sufficiently establish he is a flight risk, rendering disposition of his constitutional claims unnecessary."). 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. Meredith A. Vacca on 05/06/2026. (JCL) (Entered: 05/06/2026)

#12

May 18, 2026

Letter filed by Philip Rhoney, Todd Lyons, Tammy Marich, Kristi Noem in opposition to Motion to Enforce. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/18/2026)

#13

May 27, 2026

REPLY to Response to Motion re 10 Emergency MOTION to Enforce Judgment AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW filed by Mehmet Can Asker. (Ramini, Vilena) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#14

Jun 25, 2026

DECISION and ORDER denying 10 Motion to Enforce Judgment. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 06/25/2026. (JCL) Modified to mark as opinion on 6/25/2026 (JCL).

#15

Jul 29, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5921697.), filed by Mehmet Can Asker. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EOIR "Case Appeals Filed, Completed, and Pending" statistics (the DOJ workload report), # 2 Exhibit EOIR "Decision Outcomes", # 3 Exhibit EOIR "All Appeals Filed, Completed, and Pending" Adjudication Statistics)(Ramini, Vilena) (Entered: 07/29/2026)

#16

Jul 31, 2026

TEXT ORDER dismissing 15 July 29, 2026 "emergency petition." On February 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The Court granted the petition to the extent of a bond hearing on April 14, 2026. ECF No. 14. Respondents provided Petitioner with a timely bond hearing pursuant to the Court's Order, the immigration judge ordering Petitioner to remain detained. ECF No. 8. Given that a bond hearing was held, the Court informed the parties that it "views the issues raised by petition as now resolved and intends to direct the Clerk's Office to close the case, unless on or before May 4, 2026, either party objects." ECF No. 9. On May 4, Petitioner filed an "emergency motion to enforce judgment," ECF No. 10, on which the Court ordered a briefing schedule, ECF No. 11. After considering the parties' arguments, the Court denied Petitioner's motion to enforce on June 25, 2026. ECF No. 14. Approximately a month later, on July 29, Petitioner filed an "emergency petition," entitled his "verified renewed application for a writ of habeas corpus (prolonged detention) and incorporated memorandum of law." ECF No. 15 at 1 (capitalization omitted). The Court construes this as an amended petition, which the Court finds must be dismissed due to its improper filing and because consideration on the merits would be futile. See, e.g., Dubose v. Quiros, No. 3:25-CV-271 (SVN), 2026 WL 395925, at *2-3 (D. Conn. Feb. 12, 2026). Petitioner did not seek leave to amend his petition nor Respondents' assent to amend before filing a "renewed" petition over five months after his original petition was filed. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that leave to amend is not warranted. Further, the amended grounds for relief that Petitioner now seeks are futile. A claim for release due to unreasonably prolonged detention during the pendency of removal proceedings assesses the constitutionality of the length of a petitioner's detention without a bond hearing. Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 855 (2d Cir. 2020) ("We conclude that Velasco Lopez's prolonged incarceration, which had continued for fifteen months without an end in sight or a determination that he was a danger or flight risk, violated due process."). Petitioner here may have first been taken into custody on November 26, 2025, but he received a bond hearing that complied with this Court's prior Order on April 23, 2026. ECF Nos. 8, 14. The three months that have passed since do not state claim for relief under Velasco Lopez v. Decker.Accordingly, the July 29 amended petition, ECF No. 15, is DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Meredith A. Vacca on 7/31/26. (NWA)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 07/31/2026)

#17

Aug 03, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Mehmet Can Asker against Kristi Noem, Philip Rhoney, Tammy Marich, Todd Lyons. Signed by Andrew W. Moeller, Clerk of Court on 8/3/2026. (TME) (Entered: 08/03/2026)