Western District of New York • 6:26-cv-06667

#1

Jun 26, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5880838.), filed by Carlos Alberto Arreaga-Bravo.(Gutierrez, Mario) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#2

Jun 26, 2026

CONTINUATION OF EXHIBITS to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus . (Gutierrez, Mario) (Entered: 06/26/2026)

#3

Jun 29, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo.So that the petitioner can fully participate in these proceedings and maintain adequate access to legal counsel, the respondents are enjoined from transferring the petitioner to any district outside the Western District of New York. See Perez y Perez v. Noem, 2025 WL 1908284, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2025) (collecting cases). In Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026), the Second Circuit held 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. And in Cabrera Martinez v. Marich, 816 F. Supp. 3d 356 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), this Court held that detention of noncitizens who have remained in the country following expiration of parole is under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, not section 1225. Additionally, this Court held in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), "that constitutional due process requires the government to bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is either a danger to the community or a flight risk even at an initial bond hearing under section 1226(a)." Id. at 598. It appears that the holdings of Barbosa da Cunha, Alvarez Ortiz and/or Cabrera Martinez may apply to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 7/6/2026, why, in light of those decisions, (1) the petition in this case should not be granted, and (2) the Court should not order that the petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the 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, the petitioner's ability to pay. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 6/29/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 06/29/2026)

Jun 29, 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. (MMG)

Jun 29, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. Notification to chambers of online civil opening. (MMG)

#4

Jul 06, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Chelsea A. Cruz, appearing on behalf of James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

#5

Jul 06, 2026

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney.(Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

#6

Jul 06, 2026

MEMORANDUM in Support re 5 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Deportation Officer, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration)(Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 07/06/2026)

#7

Jul 07, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 5 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Markwayne Mullin, Todd Blanche, Philip Rhoney, Todd Lyons, James Bausch. The petitioner shall respond by 7/16/2026. The respondents may reply by 7/23/2026. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/7/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 07/07/2026)

#8

Jul 14, 2026

RESPONSE in Opposition re 5 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo. (Gutierrez, Mario) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

#9

Jul 23, 2026

REPLY to Response to Motion re 5 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. (Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

#10

Aug 14, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo; and denying 5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Markwayne Mullin, Todd Blanche, Philip Rhoney, Todd Lyons, James Bausch.On June 26, 2026, the petitioner, Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 8 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that his detention without a constitutionally adequate bond hearing is unlawful. Docket Item 1. The respondents have moved to dismiss, arguing that Arreaga Bravo failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his petition. Docket Item 5; see also Docket Item 6 at 3-5. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the petition and DENIES the motion to dismiss. "A habeas petitioner must normally exhaust administrative remedies before seeking federal court intervention." Hernandez-Hernandez v. Feeley, 535 F. Supp. 3d 142, 150 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) (quoting Michalski v. Decker, 279 F. Supp. 3d 487, 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)). This requirement, however, is "prudential." Id. (quoting Hossain v. Barr, 2019 WL 5964678, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2019)). Courts generally "will waive the prudential exhaustion requirement where '(1) available remedies provide no genuine opportunity for adequate relief; (2) irreparable injury may occur without immediate judicial relief; (3) administrative appeal would be futile; and (4) in certain instances a plaintiff has raised a substantial constitutional question.'" Id. (quoting Beharry v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 51, 62 (2d Cir. 2003)). Here, the Court finds that waiving the exhaustion requirement is appropriate for several reasons. First, Arreaga Bravo seeks a bond hearing with the burden of proof on the government—a remedy that is not available through the administrative process. See Docket Item 1 ¶ 10. Instead, the bond hearing Arreaga Bravo would receive without this Court's intervention would put the burden on him, which this Court has held violates due process. See Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579, 596-601 (W.D.N.Y. 2025). Thus, "available remedies provide no genuine opportunity for adequate relief" and "administrative appeal would be futile." See Hernandez-Hernandez, 535 F. Supp. 3d at 150; see also id. ("[W]here a constitutionally inadequate bond hearing (or no bond hearing at all) has been provided, prudential exhaustion is generally not required."). Second, filing the petition prior to Arreaga Bravo's receiving a bond hearing was necessary to preserve his rights. Arreaga Bravo sought an order enjoining the respondents from transferring him out of this District, Docket Item 1 at 17, and the Court granted that request, Docket Item 3. If Arreaga Bravo had not applied for and received that relief, he may well have been transferred to a different jurisdiction in which he would be deemed ineligible for a bond hearing. Compare Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61, 69 (2d Cir. 2026) (holding that "noncitizens[] who are present in the United States after entering the country without inspection and admission, and who were not apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter" are not subject to mandatory detention under section 1225(b)(2)(A) and are eligible for bond hearings under section 1226(a)), with Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2026) (reaching the opposite conclusion). And because transfer prior to a bond hearing would have caused "irreparable injury," see Hernandez-Hernandez, 535 F. Supp. 3d at 150, that also favors prudential waiver of the exhaustion requirement. Finally, the Court finds that the petition "raised a substantial constitutional question" that also warrants waiving the exhaustion requirement. See id.For all those reasons, this Court denies the motion to dismiss, Docket Item 6, and grants the petitioner's request for a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. For the reasons explained in Alvarez Ortiz, this Court ORDERS the respondents to provide the petitioner with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within seven calendar days of the date of this order. At that hearing, the government shall bear the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a danger to the community or a flight risk. At that bond hearing, the immigration judge must consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, the petitioner's ability to pay. If the respondents fail to provide such a hearing within seven calendar days, they shall immediately release the petitioner. On or before 8/24/2026, the respondents shall file a status report confirming that the petitioner has either been granted a bond hearing in compliance with this order or released from custody.SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/14/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 08/14/2026)

#11

Aug 20, 2026

MOTION to Enforce #10 Text Order by Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Gutierrez, Mario) Modified docket text on 8/20/2026 (DMK). (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#12

Aug 20, 2026

NOTICE by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney re 10 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Terminate Motions,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, of Bond Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Order of the Immigration Judge)(Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#13

Aug 20, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 11 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo. Response due 9/3/2026. Reply due 9/9/2026. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/20/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

Aug 20, 2026

E-Filing Notification: 11 MOTION to Enforce Judgment. No action required. Clerk updated docket text. (DMK)

#14

Aug 25, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 11 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo. Virtual Oral Argument set for 9/11/2026 at 2:00 PM in U.S. District Court, Niagara Courtroom, 8th Floor West, 2 Niagara Square, Buffalo, NY before Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. Dial-in instructions will be sent directly to the parties. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/25/2026. (CMD) (Entered: 08/25/2026)

#15

Sep 02, 2026

RESPONSE in Opposition re 11 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 09/02/2026)

#16

Sep 09, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 15 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo. (Gutierrez, Mario) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

#17

Sep 11, 2026

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo: Oral Argument re 11 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo held on 9/11/2026. Court ordered that this proceeding is not to be recorded, or taped in any way. If someone does record it, they will be found in contempt of court. After hearing from parties, the Court ordered the respondents to provide the petitioner with a new bond hearing. A text order will be issued. Based on Attorney Guitierrez's request, petitioner shall file a discreet submission by 9/14/2026 specifically noting which portions of the petition he is seeking to amend. Respondents' response is due by 9/24/2026. Appearances. For petitioner: Mario Guitierrez. For respondents: AUSA Chelsea Cruz.(Court Reporter Laurel Tubbs.) (CMD) (Entered: 09/11/2026)

#18

Sep 14, 2026

MOTION for Leave to File Leave to Amend by Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo.(Gutierrez, Mario) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#19

Sep 15, 2026

TEXT ORDER granting 11 MOTION to Enforce Judgment filed by Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo.On 8/14/2026, this Court denied the respondents' motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought in this case and granted the petition in part. Docket Item 10 . More specifically, the Court ordered the respondents to provide the petitioner, Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo, with a "constitutionally adequate bond hearing" at which the "government [would] bear the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that [Arreaga Bravo] is a danger to the community or a flight risk." Id. At that hearing, the immigration judge also was to "consider non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, [Arreaga Bravo]'s ability to pay." Id.On 8/19/2026, Arreaga Bravo was given a bond hearing before an immigration judge. Docket Item 12 . The immigration judge denied bond, finding that the government had demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Arreaga Bravo was a flight risk and, in fact, that Arreaga Bravo's "risk of flight [i]s so high that no conditions for release are appropriate." Docket Item [12-1]. The next day, Arreaga Bravo moved to enforce this Court's order, arguing that while the immigration judge might have used the correct words, the bond hearing did not comply with this Courts direction. Docket Item 11 . After the government responded, Docket Item 15, and Arreaga Bravo replied, Docket Item 16, this Court heard oral argument on the motion to enforce, see Docket Item 17 .The Court has now carefully reviewed the parties' submissions and the transcript of the bond hearing. Docket Items 11, 15, and 16 . And the Court agrees with Arreaga Bravo that he did not receive a bond hearing that complied with this Court's order, Docket Item 10 . At the bond hearing, the immigration judge found that the government met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Arreaga Bravo was a flight risk based solely on his unlawful entry into the United States and the fact that he lived here "under the radar." See Docket Item [15-1] at 18 (hearing transcript); Docket Item 12 (written decision noting that Arreaga Bravo "avoid[ed] detection[ by immigration authorities] until an encounter that led to his current detention"). But that can be said of virtually every noncitizen found to be in the United States without permission. Indeed, if that alone is enough to find clear and convincing evidence that a noncitizen is a risk of flight, then no noncitizen given a hearing would ever be entitled to release. And that cannot be the case. What is more, other than concluding that "no conditions for release are appropriate," the immigration judge said nothing about why certain conditions—a GPS ankle monitor, for example—might not ameliorate any flight risk. See Docket Item [15-8]. And it certainly is not self-evident to this Court why Arreaga Bravo, as opposed to any other noncitizen living here without permission, is so serious a flight risk that there is no way to ensure that he does not flee.In reaching this decision, this Court recognizes that it is not its responsibility to decide whether the immigration judge's decision was correct. See Apollinaire v. Barr, 2019 WL 4023560, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2019) (explaining that the Court's role in reviewing a motion to enforce "is narrow: it is to determine whether [the r]espondent[s] complied with the [Court's o]rder, not to review the hearing evidence de novo and determine whether [the p]etitioner should be released (italics omitted)); see also Sol v. I.N.S., 274 F.3d 648, 651 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding that "federal jurisdiction over [section] 2241 petitions does not extend to review of discretionary determinations by the [immigration judge]"). Indeed, this Court has not interfered with a number of immigration judges' decisions that this Court may have made differently. See, e.g., Delwar v. Ball et al., Case No. 26-cv-1167, Docket Item 17 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2026); Gonzalez Ortega v. Ball, Case No. 26-cv-897, Docket Item 30 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2026). Rather, it is the job of this Court simply to decide whether Arreaga Bravo was given the process that the Court found he was due. And based on the record of the immigration court proceedings, he was not. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Arreaga Bravo's motion to enforce, Docket Item 11 . Within 7 days of the date of this order, the respondents shall provide Arreaga Bravo with a new bond hearing. At that hearing, the government shall bear the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that Arreaga Bravo is a danger to the community or a flight risk, and the immigration judge must consider and address non-bond alternatives to detention or, if setting a bond, Arreaga Bravo's ability to pay. Id. If the respondents fail to provide such a hearing within seven calendar days, they shall immediately release Arreaga Bravo. On or before 9/23/2026, the respondents shall file a status report confirming that Arreaga Bravo has either been granted a bond hearing in compliance with this order or released from custody.Arreaga Bravo also has moved for leave to amend the petition. See Docket Item 18 ; Docket Item 11 . The respondents may respond on or before 9/24/2026.SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 9/15/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

#20

Sep 22, 2026

NOTICE by James Bausch, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney re 19 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Terminate Motions,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, of bond hearing (Attachments: # 1 Order of the Immigration Judge)(Cruz, Chelsea) (Entered: 09/22/2026)

#21

Sep 23, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 20 Notice (Other), filed by Markwayne Mullin, Todd Blanche, Philip Rhoney, Todd Lyons, James Bausch.The respondents have filed a letter, Docket Item 20, indicating that an immigration judge held a bond hearing in compliance with this Court's order, Docket Item 19, and that the petitioner was ordered released on bond. If either party believes there are any further issues properly before this Court, that party may show cause within 14 days of this order. If neither party shows cause why issues remain before this Court within 14 days, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case without further order. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 9/23/2026. (DDC)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 09/23/2026)

#22

Sep 24, 2026

TEXT ORDER denying as moot 18 MOTION for Leave to File Leave to Amend filed by Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 9/24/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#23

Oct 15, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Carlos Alberto Arreaga Bravo against James Bausch, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons. Signed by Andrew W. Moeller, Clerk of Court on 10/15/2026. (DMK) (Entered: 10/15/2026)