Western District of New York • 6:26-cv-06897

#1

Aug 27, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11987928 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Ramiro Velasco Barradas. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form) (Miller, Jacob) Modified on 8/27/2026 (NVB). Modified on 8/27/2026 (NVB). [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#2

Aug 27, 2026

Case transferred to Western Division (Springfield) (NVB) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#3

Aug 27, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Morgan. (MMR) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#4

Aug 27, 2026

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered. EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (MMR) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#5

Aug 27, 2026

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Electronic order entered. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2243 governing Sec. 2241 cases for service on respondents, the answer or responsive pleading is due by September 10, 2026. Respondents shall also include the petitioner's full alien file (A-file) from the Department of Homeland Security. If the A-file is unavailable, the government shall include all documents within its possession, custody, or control which reflects any asserted reason for petitioner's continued detention. (TF) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#6

Aug 27, 2026

NOTICE by Ramiro Velasco Barradas VIOLATION OF STAY ORDER AND RISK OF IMMINENT REMOVAL (Miller, Jacob) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#7

Aug 27, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 8/28/2026 at 12:00 PM in Remote Proceeding : Springfield before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni. This hearing will be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the courtroom deputy of the session as soon as possible.Audio access to the hearing may be available to the media and public. Please check the Court schedule. In order to gain access to the hearing, you must sign up at the following address: https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html.For questions regarding access to hearings, you may refer to the general orders and public notices of the Court available on www.mad.uscourts.gov or contact the session here. (CR) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/27/2026)

#8

Aug 28, 2026

NOTICE by Ramiro Velasco Barradas re 6 Notice (Other) CONFIRMED LOCATION (Miller, Jacob) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#9

Aug 28, 2026

Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: Status Conference held on 8/28/2026. (Attorneys present: Atty Miller, AUSA Farquhar) Colloquy re: status of case. Court accepts the government's recitation of facts for the purposes of this hearing. For reasons stated during hearing, the Court will transfer case to the District of New York. A separate order shall issue. (Court Reporter: Leigh Gershowitz at Leigh_Gershowitz@mad.uscourts.gov.) (CR) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#10

Aug 28, 2026

NOTICE by Ramiro Velasco Barradas SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Miller, Jacob) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#11

Aug 28, 2026

NOTICE by Ramiro Velasco Barradas re 10 Notice (Other) (Miller, Jacob) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#12

Aug 28, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Rayford A. Farquhar on behalf of Michael Krol, Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, David Wesling (Farquhar, Rayford) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#13

Aug 28, 2026

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. ORDER entered transferring 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Western District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1631. Having considered the petition filed as well as the facts developed during the August 28, 2026, hearing, the court grants the government's request, made during the hearing, to transfer this action to the Western District of New York. On the morning of August 27, 2026, Petitioner, along with Carlos Eduardo Roa Miranda, the petitioner in Roa Miranda v. Wesling et al., 26-cv-30149, was picked up in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") Enforcement Removal Operations ("ERO") Officers assigned to an ICE field office in New York. Petitioner was then briefly taken to the Albany Field Office, approximately one hour from Pittsfield, Massachusetts, before being transported to an ICE facility in Buffalo, New York, where he is currently detained. When Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus (at approximately 10:05 AM on August 27, 2026), he was already in New York. Although the court rejects Petitioner Ramiro Velasco Barradas's suggestion that he is detained in the District of Massachusetts, the court believes his counsel took that position in good faith based on the information available to counsel regarding Petitioner's whereabouts during an ever-changing situation.Because Petitioner was detained in New York when he filed the petition, and later detained at the ICE facility in Buffalo, New York, this court lacks jurisdiction over his habeas petition. "[T]he 'immediate custodian' rule, which states that 'in habeas challenges to present physical confinement-- 'core challenges'-- the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.'" Tham v. Adducci, 319 F. Supp. 3d 574, 576 (D. Mass. 2018) (quoting Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004)). Based on the facts presently available to the court, no exception to the "immediate custodian" rule applies here. See Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2000) (discussing the "extraordinary circumstances" when a supervisory immigration official may be named as respondent, including where there are facts suggesting "bad faith" or "furtiveness," such as the Department of Homeland Security moving a noncitizen form one site to another "in an attempt to manipulate jurisdiction"). Accordingly, the court applies the "general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement." Padilla, 542 U.S. at 443. As David Wesling, ICE Boston Acting Field Office Director, and Michael Krol, HSI New England Special Agent in Charge are no longer appropriate respondents, the court finds it does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner's writ of habeas petition. That conclusion does not require dismissal. When a federal court lacks jurisdiction, it may transfer the case to another federal court that does have jurisdiction if it is in the interest of justice to do so. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1631; see also Ozturk v. Trump, 777 F. Supp. 3d 26, 43 (D. Mass. 2025) (finding that courts in the "First Circuit ha[ve] recognized that Section 1631 applies in the context of habeas petitioners" (citing Tham v. Adducci, 319 F. Supp. 3d 574, 577 (D. Mass. 2018); DeCarvalho v. Moniz, No. 21-cv-11946-WGY, 2021 WL 5811301, at *1 (D. Mass. Dec. 7, 2021)). Indeed, the First Circuit has recognized a "transfer is presumptively preferable because the dismissal of an action or appeal that might thrive elsewhere is not only resource-wasting but also justice-defeating." Britell v. United States, 318 F.3d 70, 74 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing CruzAguilera v. INS, 245 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.2001)). This is not a case where transfer would "unfairly benefit the proponent" or "unduly burden the judicial system." Id. Accordingly, based on a totality of the circumstances, the case is transferred. See id. Once transferred, "the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1631; see Ozturk, 777 F. Supp. 3d at 43. Here, the transferee court should treat the Petition as filed in the Western District of New York on August 27, 2026, at 10:05 AM. The Western District of New York may modify the deadlines set forth in this court's August 27, 2026, order as needed. (MMR) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#14

Aug 28, 2026

Emergency MOTION for Reconsideration re 13 Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by Ramiro Velasco Barradas.(Miller, Jacob) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/28/2026)

#15

Aug 31, 2026

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying 14 Emergency MOTION for Reconsideration re 13 Order. The court declines to reconsider its order transferring jurisdiction to the Western District of New York, the district of confinement at the time the petition was filed. Contrary to Petitioner's suggestion, the court finds no attempt by the government to manipulate jurisdiction under these particular facts, based on the limited record before the court as developed at the hearing. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 44142, 44849 (2004). In short, the record does not suggest either "furtiveness" or "bad faith," Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2000), which is generally required under binding First Circuit precedent in order to demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" to fit within the "narrow exception" to the immediate custodian rule. This court does not seek to expand or contract the availability of this exception but only to apply it in a fair manner to the specific facts of this case. (TRL) [Transferred from mad on 9/1/2026.] (Entered: 08/31/2026)

#16

Sep 01, 2026

Case transferred in from District of Massachusetts; Case Number 3:26-cv-13933. (Entered: 09/01/2026)

#17

Sep 01, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ramiro Velasco Barradas.The petitioner requested "leave of Court to amend and supplement this [p]etition, including to add or refine claims, exhibits, and legal argument[s], upon receipt of the arrest report, file, custody and bond records, and any other documentation bearing on the legality of [the p]etitioner's arrest and continued detention." Docket Item 1 at 3. The Court grants that request. The petitioner may file an amended petition on or before 9/3/2026. Moreover, 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). SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 9/1/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 09/01/2026)

Sep 01, 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. (LB)

Sep 01, 2026

Case assigned to Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo. Notification to chambers of electronic case transfer. (LB)

#18

Sep 02, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ramiro Velasco Barradas.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 9/9/2026, 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. 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 9/9/2026 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 9/2/2026. (DDC) (Entered: 09/02/2026)