Western District of Texas • 5:26-cv-04709

#1

Jul 24, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ATXWDC-22363882), filed by Massama Komara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, IJ Order Granting Withholding, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Gibbs, Stephanie) (Entered: 07/24/2026)

#2

Jul 24, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Massama Komara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DHS Guidance, # 2 Exhibit USAO Email, # 3 Proposed Order)(Gibbs, Stephanie) (Entered: 07/24/2026)

Jul 24, 2026

If ordered by the court, all referrals will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Bemporad (vl)

Jul 24, 2026

Case assigned to Judge Jason K. Pulliam. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (vl)

Jul 24, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Jul 24, 2026

To be Referred to SA Mag Judge

#3

Jul 27, 2026

STANDING ORDER for procedure in cases before Judge Pulliam. All parties and counsel are directed to review Judge Pulliam's Standing Order containing rules of practice, particularly the requirement of conference before filing a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) and demonstration of complete diversity. Failure to follow these rules of practice could result in the Court striking the Motion to Dismiss on its own initiative without further notice. Signed by Judge Jason Pulliam. (r013) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

#4

Jul 29, 2026

Supplement to

#5

Aug 04, 2026

Text ORDER FOR SERVICE of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and 4 Supplement to Motion. It is ORDERED that notice of electronic filing of those filings and this Order to the United States Attorney in San Antonio, Texas shall constitute service on the Federal Respondents and on all Respondents unless otherwise contested. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file a response to the Petition and Motion within seven (7) days of the date of service. The response must identify: (1) Petitioner's alleged country of birth, so that Petitioner can be located in the Online Detainee Locator System; (2) Petitioner's alleged date of entry and statutory basis for removability; (3) any previous immigration detention history, e.g., whether Petitioner has previously been subject to immigration detention and, if so, the approximate date of Petitioner's previous release into the interior; and (4) Petitioner's alleged immigration status, e.g., whether Petitioner has a pending claim for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture or is subject to a final removal order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner elects to file a reply, Petitioner may do so no later than seven days after the Respondents file their answers/responses. Additionally, it is FURTHER ORDERED that any removal is IMMEDIATELY STAYED until further order from this Court or until this case closes. This case involves a withholding of removal to Petitioner's country of origin and a possible alternative removal to a third country. As persuasively stated by a sister court, such third country removal invokes due process protections under the Fifth Amendment. See Sagastizado v. Noem, 802 F. Supp. 3d 992, 1008-13 (S.D. Tex. 2025). Although 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g) may not directly apply under the circumstances, the regulation's requirements still appear pertinent to the issue of procedural due process. See Sagastizado, 802 F. Supp. 3d at 1009. And due process requires at a minimum, that an immigration judge review a negative reasonable fear interview ("RFI") as to the third country prior to Petitioner's removal. See id. at 1011-13. While Sagastizado directly addressed a filed motion for preliminary injunction, a matter that this Court does not yet reach, the case provides persuasive reasons for maintaining the status quoso that the Court can ultimately reach the issues presented. As this Court has previously explained, it is not staying "removal based on any request by Petitioner," but is instead simply "preserving existing conditions so that it c[an] address the matters raised in the instant habeas petition." Umanzor Maldonado v. Lyons, No. 5:26-CV-0112-JKP, 2026 WL 196521, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2026). This is an exercise of the Court's inherent power and authority to preserve its ability to hear the case. (Entered: 08/04/2026)

Aug 04, 2026

Order