Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01706

#1

Aug 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5943039.), filed by Johnny Dario Sigua Pineda. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Welwood, Ryan) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#2

Aug 13, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Johnny Dario Sigua Pineda. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Welwood, Ryan) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#3

Aug 13, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Johnny Dario Sigua Pineda, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Johnny Dario Sigua Pineda So that the petitioner can fully participate in these proceedings [and maintain adequate access to legal counsel], his motion for a temporary restraining order, Docket Item 2, is GRANTED IN PART, and 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 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 8/20/2026, 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 8/13/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

#4

Aug 13, 2026

TEXT ORDER: Additionally, in Last Name Unknown v. Ball, 2026 WL 2096666, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 21, 2026), this Court held that a petitioner whose detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) was entitled to immediate release when a warrant had not been obtained for his arrest. And in Loaeza v. Bausch, 2026 WL 2150155 (W.D.N.Y. July 27, 2026), Judge Vacca explained that "[w]ithout a valid [Notice to Appear] in place, removal proceedings are not pending, and [the r]espondents have no authority to make an arrest or effectuate detention." Id. at *1-2. Accordingly, the respondents also shall SHOW CAUSE on or before 8/20/2026 why the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release under Last Name Unknown and/or Loaeza, including providing a copy of any warrant or Notice to Appear that the respondents say was issued. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/13/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 08/13/2026)

Aug 13, 2026

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

Aug 13, 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. 636(c) 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. (KKR)

#5

Aug 20, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Adam A. Khalil, appearing on behalf of Todd Blanche, George Harvey, Daren K. Margolin, Markwayne Mullin, Andrew Oliveri, David Venturella. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#6

Aug 20, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 3 Text Order,,,,,,,,,, Terminate Motions,,,,,,,,, 4 Text Order,,, filed by Todd Blanche, George Harvey, Daren K. Margolin, Markwayne Mullin, Andrew Oliveri, David Venturella. (Attachments: # 1 Notice to Appear, # 2 Warrant for Arrest of Alien)(Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#7

Aug 20, 2026

TEXT ORDER re Docket Item 1 On 8/13/2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of the Second Circuit's decision in da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026), and this Court's decision in Alvarez Ortiz v. Freden, 808 F. Supp. 3d 579 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), "(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." Docket Item 3.In response, the "[r]espondents acknowledge" that the Second Circuit recently held that "'[s]ection 1225(b)(2)(A) does not apply to... noncitizens,'" such as the petitioner, "'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.' Rather, the court ruled, [s]ection 1226(a) applies." Docket Item 6 at 2 (quoting da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 69). The respondents do, however, argue that the burden of proof at a bond hearing under section 1226(a) should be on the petitioner but they do not distinguish this case from Alvarez Ortiz. See id. at 2. The respondents have reserved all rights, and this Court appreciates their efforts "to conserve judicial and party resources" by not rehashing issues that this Court and the Second Circuit already have decided. See id. at 1. The Court also ordered the respondents to show cause why the petitioner was not entitled to his immediate release under this Court's holding in Last Name Unknown v. Ball, 2026 WL 2096666, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 21, 2026) and Judge Vacca's decision—with which this Court agrees—in Loaeza v. Bausch, 2026 WL 2150155 (W.D.N.Y. July 27, 2026), the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release. See Docket Item 4. As to that, the respondents have provided a copy of the warrant and Notice to Appear served on the petitioner. See Docket Item 6-1; Docket Item 6-2. Those two documents, however, are both dated July 30, 2026—the same day the petitioner was arrested, Docket Item 1 ¶2—and do not provide any clarity as to whether they were issued prior to the petitioner's arrest. Therefore, the respondents shall file a supplemental response by 8/27/2026 addressing whether those two documents were issued before or after the petitioner's arrest. In the meantime, for the reasons explained in Alvarez Ortiz and da Cunha, this Court GRANTS the petition to the extent it requests a bond hearing and 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 8/28/2026, 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 8/20/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 08/20/2026)

#8

Aug 21, 2026

Letter filed by Todd Blanche, George Harvey, Daren K. Margolin, Markwayne Mullin, Andrew Oliveri, David Venturella re lack of clarity when NTA was signed. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#9

Aug 21, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Johnny Dario Sigua Pineda In Loaeza v. Bausch, 2026 WL 2150155, at *1-2 (W.D.N.Y. July 27, 2026)—with which this Court agrees—Judge Vacca explained that "[w]ithout a valid [Notice to Appear] in place, removal proceedings are not pending, and [the r]espondents have no authority to make an arrest or effectuate detention" of an individual subject to section 1226(a). And on 8/13/2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of Loaeza, the petitioner was not entitled to his immediate release, see Docket Item 4. In response, the respondents provided a copy of the Notice to Appear served on the petitioner, but because that document was dated the same day as the arrest, see Docket Item 6-1; Docket Item 1 ¶2, the Court ordered the respondents to provide a supplemental response addressing whether that document was issued before or after the petitioner's arrest, see Docket Item 7. The respondents now have told the Court "that the [official] who signed the Notice to Appear... cannot recall with certainty when he signed" it and that "there is no way to determine exactly when he did so." Docket Item 8 . In other words, the respondents cannot tell the Court whether there was a Notice to Appear in place before the petitioner's arrest. Therefore, they have failed to show cause why the petitioner is not entitled to his immediate release. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Loaeza, the respondents shall release the petitioner within 24 hours of this order. On or before 8/26/2026, the respondents shall file a status update confirming that the petitioner has been released. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 8/21/2026. (ZHM) (Entered: 08/21/2026)

#10

Aug 24, 2026

Letter filed by Todd Blanche, George Harvey, Daren K. Margolin, Markwayne Mullin, Andrew Oliveri, David Venturella re release. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 08/24/2026)

#11

Aug 25, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 10 Letter filed by Markwayne Mullin, George Harvey, Andrew Oliveri, Todd Blanche, David Venturella, Daren K. Margolin The respondents have filed a letter, Docket Item 10, indicating that the petitioner was released in compliance with this Court's order, Docket Item 9. If the petitioner believes there are any further issues properly before this Court, the petitioner may show cause within 14 days of this order. If the petitioner does not show 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 8/25/2026. (ZHM)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 08/25/2026)