Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-00719

#1

Apr 17, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number BPAWDC-9514589), filed by Geraldin Ariel Guzman-Umanzor. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Wolford) (Allen, Roberto) (Entered: 04/17/2026)

#2

Apr 21, 2026

Errata re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Geraldin Ariel Guzman-Umanzor. Reason for Correction: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus inadvertently omitted from initial filing.. (Allen, Roberto) (Entered: 04/21/2026)

Apr 21, 2026

Judge Arthur J. Schwab added. (tla)

#3

Apr 22, 2026

Case Management Order

#4

Apr 22, 2026

Errata re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, by Geraldin Ariel Guzman-Umanzor. Reason for Correction: Correcting County of Residence for Plaintiff. (Allen, Roberto) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

#5

Apr 22, 2026

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE and Compliance by Geraldin Ariel Guzman-Umanzor re 3 Case Management Order, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Copy of email sent for service) (O'Grady, Max) Modified text on 4/23/2026. (cel) (Entered: 04/22/2026)

Apr 22, 2026

CLERK'S REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,. ERROR: Civil Cover Sheet improperly completed; current County of Residence not listed. CORRECTION: Filer to resubmit properly completed Civil Cover Sheet using the Errata event, linking the document to the previous entry. (tla)

#6

Apr 27, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew McHale on behalf of KURT WOLFORD. (McHale, Matthew) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#7

May 22, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,, filed by KURT WOLFORD. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5) (McHale, Matthew) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#8

May 27, 2026

REPLY BRIEF re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Geraldin Ariel Guzman-Umanzor. (Allen, Roberto) (Entered: 05/27/2026)

#9

Jun 18, 2026

ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, a noncitizen detained by Respondents at Moshannon Valley Processing Center, seeks immediate release from custody or, in the alternative, an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. Petitioner, a citizen and native of El Salvador: (1) entered the United States without inspection on or about August 20, 2014; (2) was originally processed for expedited removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1225(b); (3) was found to have demonstrated a credible fear of returning to El Salvador, transferred to full removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a, issued a Notice to Appear, and released on a $7,500.00 bond in September, 2014; (4) was ordered removed to El Salvador on June 4, 2025, (5) was detained by agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on July 3, 2025; and (6) filed an appeal of the removal order, which remains pending. (Doc. 2, Doc. 7, Doc. 8). The issue before the Court is whether Petitioner is subject to discretionary detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1226(a) or mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Respondents rely on the BIA's decision in Matter of M-S-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 509, 515-17 (A.G. 2019), which states that aliens "originally placed in expedited proceedings and then transferred to full proceedings after establishing a credible fear... remain ineligible for bond, whether they are arriving at the border or are apprehended in the United States." (Doc. 7 at 1). The Court is not persuaded by Respondents' reliance on Matter of M-S-, supra., to attempt to distinguish this Petition from others granted by this Court. Specifically, unlike the noncitizen detainee in Matter of M-S-, who was in continuous custody, Petitioner was released into the United States. Petitioner's detention, thus, is governed by § 1226(a) and he has a statutory right to a bond hearing. See Bohorquez-Hernandez v. Noem, et al., Civ. No. 3:26-231, Doc. 10) (W.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2026) (Wiegand, J.) (reasoning: "Section 1226 applies to aliens who are 'already present in the United States[,]' Jennings v. Rodriguez i>, 583 U.S. 281, 303 (2018), while the mandatory detention provision of § 1225 governs detention of 'applicants for admission' to the United States. Bethancourt Soto v. Soto, No. 25-CV-16200, 2025 WL 2976572, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2025). This Court joins the overwhelming majority of District Courts to hold that § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b), applies to aliens similarly situated to Petitioner, who are not seeking admission at a port of entry but rather are already present in the Country."). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's 2 habeas petition and ISSUES the writ on these terms: (1) Respondents shall cause Petitioner to be taken to a neutral immigration judge of the Executive Office of Immigration Review for an individualized bond hearing to occur within 30 days of this order, or else release Petitioner by such date; (2) Respondents shall ensure that such a hearing include the required due process, i.e., at a minimum, factfinding based on a record produced before the decisionmaker and disclosed to Petitioner; an opportunity to make arguments on the Petitioner's behalf; and the right to an individualized determination of Petitioner's interests. See Ghanem v. Warden Essex Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 21-1908, 2022 WL 574624, at *2 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2022); and (3) Petitioner shall be responsible for securing the necessary transcripts and record of the bond hearing. See also Hernandez Alvarez v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr. Miami, No. 25-14065, 2026 WL 1243395 (11th Cir. May 6, 2026); Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., No. 25-3050, 2026 WL 1223250 (7th Cir. May 5, 2026). The Court trusts the immigration judge to comply with this Order and ensure that Petitioner is provided due process, and therefore the immigration judge shall explain his or her individualized determination on the record. See Kamara v. Atty Gen. of U.S., 420 F.3d 202, 212 (3d Cir. 2005). Otherwise, the 2 habeas petition is DENIED. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 6-18-26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bfm) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

#10

Jun 18, 2026

Judgment (Rule 58)

Jun 18, 2026

Order