Eastern District of New York • 1:26-cv-05342

#1

Aug 28, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filing fee $ 5, receipt number ANYEDC-20579967, filed by Rasim Hot. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- IJ Order denying Asylum, # 2 Exhibit 2-I-130 Approval Notice, # 3 Exhibit 3-Motion to Reopen/Reconsider, # 4 Exhibit 4-AOS Interview Notice, # 5 Exhibit 5-Birth Certificate with translation, # 6 Exhibit 6- Order to Show Cause dated 5-11-1993, # 7 Exhibit 7-Order to Show Cause dated 9/17/1996 and IJ Order, # 8 Exhibit 8- Letter requesting medical attention, # 9 Exhibit 9- Letter from Mount Sinai regarding Mr. Hot's medical care and needs, # 10 Proposed Summons, # 11 Civil Cover Sheet) (Bretz, Kerry) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#2

Aug 28, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Rasim Hot. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Bretz, Kerry) (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#3

Aug 31, 2026

Summons Issued as to Kenneth Genalo, Raul Maldonado Jr., Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (SDM) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

#4

Aug 31, 2026

This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (SDM) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

#5

Aug 31, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Upon review of Petitioner Rasim Hot's 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 2 Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, it is hereby ordered that: (1) Respondents shall, by 5:00 p.m. on September 3, 2026, show cause in writing why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued and why Petitioner should not be immediately released. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Their response must: (a) state the statutory provision(s) under which Respondents assert the authority to detain Petitioner currently and the provision(s) under which Respondents asserted the authority to detain Petitioner at the time of his arrest; (b) provide all records that are material to this action, including, but not limited to, all records concerning efforts to effectuate Petitioner's removal, all records related to Petitioner's arrest and custody determination(s), and any other exhibits necessary to establish the "lawfulness and correct duration of Petitioner's detention in light of the issues raised in the habeas petition," see Belqui M. v. Bondi, No. 26-CV-0308 (MJD) (SGE), 2026 WL 185203, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 21, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 194071 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026); and (c) provide a sworn declaration by a government official with personal knowledge of the facts on which Respondents rely in any opposition to the Petition, including the basis for arresting and detaining Petitioner and the basis for any custody determination(s). (2) To preserve the Court's jurisdiction pending a ruling on the Petition, Respondents are restrained from removing Petitioner from the United States until further order of this Court. See M.K. v. Joyce, No. 25-CV-1935 (JMF), 2025 WL 750599, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (collecting cases ordering same). (3) Furthermore, considering Petitioner's interest in participating in proceedings before this Court and maintaining adequate access to legal counsel, Respondents are restrained from transferring Petitioner to a facility outside of this District or the Southern District of New York absent further order of this Court. See Order to Show Cause, Samb v. Joyce, No. 25-CV-6373 (DEH) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2025), Dkt. No. 3 (collecting cases issuing similar orders); 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (empowering courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 8/31/2026. (JEC) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

Aug 31, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Aug 31, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (SDM)

#6

Sep 01, 2026

Certificate of Service

#7

Sep 03, 2026

Extension of Time to File Document

Sep 03, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File

#8

Sep 08, 2026

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Kenneth Genalo, Raul Maldonado Jr., Markwayne Mullin (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G, # 8 Ex. H, # 9 Ex. I, # 10 Ex. J, # 11 Ex. K, # 12 Ex. L, # 13 So Declaration) (Stannard, Geoffrey) (Entered: 09/09/2026)

Sep 09, 2026

Scheduling Order

Sep 09, 2026

ORDER: The Court has received Respondents' 8 response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. First, the Court directs Petitioner to file a reply to Respondents' response on or before September 23, 2026. Second, the Court disagrees with Respondents' argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction to temporarily enjoin Petitioner's removal in order to preserve the Court's jurisdiction over this case. See Du v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 3:25-CV-0644 (OAW), 2025 WL 1317944, at *1 (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2025) (explaining that, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, "a federal court may temporarily enjoin immigration authorities from deporting individuals if it preserves the court's jurisdiction" and collecting cases holding the same); Pena v. Genalo, No. 26-CV-1183 (JHR), 2026 WL 412118, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2026) (similar); cf. Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 394–95 (2d Cir. 2025) (rejecting the government's argument that the district court lacked authority or jurisdiction to order the transfer of a petitioner in immigration detention and finding such authority in the All Writs Act); id. at 399–401 (rejecting the government's assertion that the same statutory authorities Respondents cite here—8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9)—deprived the district court of jurisdiction over the petition as a whole where, as here, the substance of the relief sought was release from detention rather than review of an order of removal). Therefore, while the Court will continue to consider Respondents' jurisdictional arguments as it reviews the Petition and Petitioner's forthcoming reply, the Court does not find at this time that it lacks jurisdiction such that it must vacate any portion of its Order to Show Cause. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 9/9/2026. (JEC)