Western District of New York • 6:26-cv-06450

#1

Apr 20, 2026

Emergency PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5796728.), filed by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 04/20/2026)

#2

Apr 21, 2026

TEXT ORDER re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. This Court has issued Decision and Orders in Quituizaca Quituisaca v. Bondi, et al., No. 25-cv-6527, 2025 WL 3264440 (W.D.N.Y Nov. 24, 2025) and Lieogo v. Freden, et al., No. 6:25-CV-06615 EAW, 2025 WL 3290694 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025), finding that noncitizens who are present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but instead are subject to detention under section 1226. In addition, this Court issued Decision and Orders in Ivonin v. Rhoney, et al., No. 6:25-CV-06673 EAW, 2026 WL 199283 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2026) and Ab-Rahim v. Marich, No. 6:26-CV-06005-EAW, 2026 WL 279113, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2026), holding that the detention of noncitizens following expiration of parole is also governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and not § 1225. The Court has also concluded based on the circumstances in these cases and a balancing of the factors under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), that due process requires the burden to be on the government at the bond hearing to establish dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Lieogo, 2025 WL 3290694, at *4-5. In deciding whether the government has met their burden of proof, the IJ must consider whether less-restrictive alternatives to detention can reasonably address the government's interest in continued detention and if the IJ finds that the government has not met this burden, then in setting any bond the IJ must consider ability to pay and alternative conditions of release. Id.Accordingly, Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before April 28, 2026, why, in light of those decisions, the petition in this case should not be granted to the extent that it seeks an order requiring that Petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk and at which the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, Petitioner's ability to pay.In addition, the Court temporarily enjoins Respondents from transferring Petitioner outside this District pending a resolution of the petition because the Court finds that Petitioner's presence in the District is necessary to support the Court's resolution of the issues in the petition, including because it will enable Petitioner to fully participate in these proceedings and maintain adequate access to legal counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("Unless 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. The applicant or the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set forth in the return or allege any other material facts."). This temporary order extends to the transfer of Petitioner outside the country so as to maintain the status quo and solely so that the Court can make an informed decision about its authority to issue relief and whether any relief that it has the power to issue should be granted.Further, the Clerk's Office is directed to serve a copy of the petition and 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. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 4/21/2026. (JKS)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 04/21/2026)

Apr 21, 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. (ARS)

Apr 21, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford. Notification to chambers of online civil opening. (ARS)

Apr 22, 2026

Clerk emailed 1 Petition to USANYW-Immigration-Habeas@usdoj.gov. (TF)

#3

Apr 25, 2026

Please disregard entry filed in error: NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney (Khalil, Adam) Modified on 4/27/2026 (RE). (Entered: 04/25/2026)

#4

Apr 25, 2026

Please disregard entry filed in error: REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order, filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) Modified on 4/27/2026 (RE). (Entered: 04/25/2026)

#5

Apr 27, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Adam A. Khalil on behalf of James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#6

Apr 27, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order, CORRECTED filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

#7

Apr 27, 2026

ORDER granting 1 petition to the extent Petitioner seeks a bond hearing. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 4/27/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 04/27/2026)

Apr 27, 2026

E-Filing Notification: 3 NOTICE of Appearance and 4 REPLY/RESPONSE. Incorrect case number and caption referenced. ACTION REQUIRED: Re-file documents with correct case caption and case number. (RE)

#8

May 05, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney re mistaken delay in bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#9

May 05, 2026

Letter filed by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza regarding failure of government to hold a bond hearing. (Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#10

May 05, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting 8 Letter Request for an Extension of Time; denying 9 Letter Request for Immediate Release. On April 27, 2026, the Court issued an Order directing Respondents to grant Petitioner a bond hearing to occur on or before May 4, 2026. (Dkt. 7). Respondents submitted a letter stating that due to a confusion with another case, the bond hearing was not held by that deadline and request a three-day extension of time to conduct the bond hearing. (Dkt. 8). Petitioner instead requests his immediate release and an Order preventing Respondents from detaining Petitioner again without a pre-deprivation bond hearing. (Dkt. 9). Due to the relatively short extension of time requested by Respondents, the Court grants their requested extension and denies Petitioner's request for immediate release. Petitioner shall be granted a bond hearing before an immigration judge on or before May 7, 2026, that conforms to the requirements set forth in the Court's Order dated April 27, 2026 (Dkt. 7). Respondents are required to provide a status update on or before May 8, 2026. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 05/05/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 05/05/2026)

#11

May 07, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 05/07/2026)

#12

May 08, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On May 7, 2026, Respondents informed the Court that a bond hearing was held and bond was denied. (Dkt. 11). The Court views the issues raised by the petition as now resolved and intends to direct the Clerk's Office to close the case, unless on or before May 15, 2026, either party objects. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 05/08/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 05/08/2026)

#13

May 21, 2026

TEXT ORDER. On April 27, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner's petition (Dkt. 1) to the extent it seeks a bond hearing (Dkt. 7). On May 7, 2026, Respondents informed the Court that a bond hearing was held and bond was denied. (Dkt. 11). The Court issued a Text Order on May 8, 2026, directing the parties to inform the Court on or before May 15, 2026, if any matters in the petition remained unresolved and to date nothing has been filed. (Dkt. 12). Accordingly, the Court dismisses any remaining claims in the petition without prejudice and directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 05/21/2026. (JKS)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 05/21/2026)

#14

May 22, 2026

JUDGMENT closing the case. Signed by Andrew W. Moeller, Clerk of Court on 5/22/26. (RE) (Entered: 05/22/2026)

#15

Jun 04, 2026

Emergency MOTION to Enforce Judgment by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Ryan Witmer, # 2 Exhibit B - Bond Order, # 3 Exhibit C - I-213)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 06/04/2026)

#16

Jun 05, 2026

TEXT ORDER denying 15 Motion to Enforce. On May 8, 2026, the Court advised the parties that it viewed the issues raised in the petition as resolved and directed the parties to file any objections to the closure of the case by May 15, 2026. (Dkt. 12). Nothing was filed by that deadline and the Clerk of Court entered judgment on May 22, 2026, without objection. Thus, if Petitioner seeks relief in connection with this matter, he needs to first move to reopen the matter by filing a procedurally-compliant motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The motion to enforce (Dkt. 15) is therefore denied without prejudice because the matter has been closed and judgment was entered without objection. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 06/05/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

#17

Jun 09, 2026

Second MOTION to Enforce Judgment including clarification of Court's authority to enforce its own judgments by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Ryan Witmer, # 2 Exhibit B - I-213, # 3 Exhibit C - Bond Denial Order)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#18

Jun 09, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 17 Second Motion to Enforce. Responses are due on or before June 16, 2026. By that date, Respondents are directed to provide a copy of the bond hearing transcript. Replies are due on or before June 19, 2026. 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. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 06/09/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 06/09/2026)

#19

Jun 15, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney with bond hearing transcript. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 06/15/2026)

#20

Jun 16, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney in opposition to Motion to Enforce. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

#21

Jun 16, 2026

Letter filed by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza regarding no intent to file reply to government's response to motion to enforce. (Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 06/16/2026)

#22

Jun 20, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting 17 Second Motion to Enforce to the extent that Respondents are again directed to provide a bond hearing in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Courts Order entered April 27, 2026. (Dkt. 7 (hereinafter "the Bond Order")). The deadline for compliance is June 30, 2026, and Respondents are directed to provide a status update on or before July 2, 2026.As an initial matter, the Court notes that while "a court may exercise ancillary jurisdiction over 'those claims and actions which are necessary to effectuate its own judgments,'" Am. Honda Fin. Corp. v. Route 57 Dev., LLC, No. 713CV0260(GTS/ATB), 2018 WL 5993681, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2018) (quoting Village of W. Hampton Dunes v. New York, 89 F. Supp. 3d 433, 443 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)), in this case after entry of the Bond Order, the Court issued Text Orders on May 8, 2026 (Dkt. 12) and May 21, 2026 (Dkt. 13), to which Petitioner never responded, the cumulative effect of which was confirmation that the issues in the petition were resolved and judgment should be entered dismissing the case. The Court is not persuaded by Petitioner's counsel's argument that the failure to respond was justified by his client needing more time to discuss the matter with counsel and raise legal fees. (Dkt. 17 at 4). A simple request for an extension of time to comply with the Court's directives could have addressed that issue.That said, the current motion has been filed within the time frames set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b) and 60(c), and Respondents have voiced no objection to considering the merits of the current motion. Accordingly, the Court hereby directs the Clerk of Court to reopen the case and it will consider the merits of the pending motion.Once getting to the merits, Petitioner has persuaded the Court that Respondents failed to comply with the Bond Order. The Court rejects Respondents' jurisdictional and exhaustion arguments, for the same reasons previously articulated in Adejola v. Barr, 439 F. Supp. 3d 120, 126-28 (W.D.N.Y. 2020). As for whether the immigration judge ("IJ") complied with the Bond Order, the record is less than clear as to the conclusions that the IJ reached. At one point the IJ stated that she found that Respondents had not met their burden. (See Dkt. 19 at 8 ln. 6-7). There is also evidence in the record that the IJ placed the burden on Petitioner (see Dkt. 19 at 9 ln.13-16; see also Dkt. 17-3 at 1 ("The Respondent has not submitted consistent proof of a fixed address or ability to continue gainful legal employment.... The Respondent has not articulated any viable forms of relief he is eligible.")). And the written order issued by the IJ (Dkt. 17-3) is remarkably similar to another one issued by the same IJ in another case just reviewed by the Court (see Dkt. 10 at case no. 6:26-cv-06454-EAW), thus undermining the notion that the IJ made an individualized determination concerning Petitioner's detention. Finally, the Court cannot conclude that the IJ meaningfully considered alternatives to detention, especially given that the issue was only addressed in a conclusory manner by the IJ after being raised by Petitioner's counsel. (See Dkt. 19 at 9-10). Thus, while the Court's role is not to review the record evidence de novo but rather to determine whether Respondents complied with the Bond Order, on this record and for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the IJ did not comply with the Bond Order. Thus, the Court grants the motion to enforce and directs Respondents to comply the Bond Order within the timeframes as noted above. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 06/20/2026. (MGB) Clerk to Follow up Modified on 6/20/2026 (MGB). (Entered: 06/20/2026)

#23

Jul 01, 2026

Second MOTION to Enforce Judgment by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Bond Denial Order, # 2 Exhibit B - Declaration of Harith Mazrui)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

#24

Jul 02, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney re bond hearing. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#25

Jul 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 23 Motion to Enforce. Responses are due on or before July 14, 2026. By that date, Respondents are directed to provide a copy of the bond hearing transcript. Replies are due on or before July 17, 2026. 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. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 07/02/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

#26

Jul 09, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney with bond hearing transcript. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 07/09/2026)

#27

Jul 14, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney in opposition to motion to enforce (ECF No. 23). (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

#28

Jul 15, 2026

Letter filed by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza reply to Government's opposition to Motion to Enforce. (Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

#29

Jul 27, 2026

TEXT ORDER re: 23 Second Motion to Enforce. Petitioner has filed a second motion to enforce (Dkt. 23) this Court's order granting Petitioner a bond hearing. A critical part of the immigration judge's determination to deny bond was the conclusion that there were "no forms of relief" available to Petitioner with respect to his immigration removal proceedings. (See Dkt. 26 at 9). While the parties make arguments either way as to the accuracy of that conclusion, the record is not sufficient for the Court to understand the current nature of Petitioner's immigration removal proceedings and the status of any requests for relief, whether through an application for a "T-Visa" or an administrative appeal of any removal order. Accordingly, the Court requests that the record be supplemented by Petitioner with documentary support on or before August 3, 2026. Respondents may respond on or before August 7, 2026. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 07/27/2026. (MGB) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

#30

Jul 31, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 29 Text Order,,,, regarding pending administrative appeal filed by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Automated Case Information)(Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

#31

Aug 06, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 29 Text Order,,,, filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/06/2026)

#32

Aug 06, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 31 Reply/Response filed by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza. (Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 08/06/2026)

#33

Aug 07, 2026

Letter filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney correcting Petitioner's misstatement of the proof relied upon by the immigration judge. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#34

Aug 07, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 33 Letter filed by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza. (Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#35

Sep 10, 2026

Letter filed by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza . (Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 09/10/2026)

#36

Sep 28, 2026

Letter filed by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza requesting decision on the pending Motion to Enforce. (Borowski, Matthew) (Entered: 09/28/2026)

#37

Oct 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER denying 23 Second Motion to Enforce Judgment. The Court rejects the government's arguments concerning exhaustion and lack of jurisdiction, for the same reasons previously articulated in other cases. See, e.g., Blandon v. Barr, 434 F. Supp. 3d 30, 35-38 (W.D.N.Y. 2020). That said, after carefully reviewing the parties' submissions and the record before the Court, the undersigned denies the motion to enforce. The immigration judge concluded that Petitioner was a flight risk because he was ordered removed and never sought any relief from removal after conceding removability. (Dkt. 26 at 8-9 ("[O]n Monday, this court issued a removal order because [Petitioner], with the assistance of counsel, filed absolutely no forms of relief before the court. . . . [This immigration court] is well aware of the propensity of those to continue to appear at hearings when relief is not likely. This is not a situation where it is not likely. There is no relief available.") (emphasis added)). This is a different conclusion than one finding risk of flight simply because a Petitioner has been unsuccessful before the immigration court and a removal order has been issued. The immigration judge based a risk of flight finding on Petitioner's failure to seek any relief. And despite Petitioner's numerous submissions on the issue as to the status of Petitioner's immigration proceedings (Dkt. 30; Dkt. 32; Dkt. 34), nothing presented by Petitioner suggests that the record did not support the immigration judge's conclusion at the bond hearing on June 24, 2026, that Petitioner had not sought any relief. Accordingly, recognizing the narrow scope of the Court's task, which does not include reviewing the hearing evidence de novo nor requiring detailed reasons as to why alternatives to detention are inappropriate on a record such as this, the undersigned concludes that the immigration judge did not rely on proof that could not possibly establish by clear and convincing evidence--as a matter of law--that Petitioner was a flight risk. Therefore, the motion to enforce is denied (Dkt. 23), any remaining claims in the petition are dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 10/07/2026. (MGB)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 10/07/2026)

#38

Oct 08, 2026

JUDGMENT dismissing petition without prejudice. Signed by Clerk of Court on 10/8/2026. (TF) (Entered: 10/08/2026)

#39

Oct 14, 2026

MOTION Miscellaneous Relief by William Esteban Chugchilan Toaquiza.(RE) (Entered: 10/15/2026)

#40

Oct 15, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 39 Motion for Reconsideration. Responses are due on or before November 5, 2026. Replies are due on or before November 19, 2026. The Court will not hold oral argument on the motion, but will decide the motion based on the papers submitted. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 10/15/2026. (JKS) (Entered: 10/15/2026)