Western District of New York • 6:26-cv-06918

#1

Sep 08, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number ANYWDC-5976331.), filed by Sohail Amatya. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Notice to Appear)(Zaiman, Grace) (Entered: 09/08/2026)

#2

Sep 09, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Sohail Amatya.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. 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. And in Mata Velasquez v. Kurzdorfer, 794 F. Supp. 3d 128 (W.D.N.Y. 2025), this Court concluded "that both common sense and the words of the statute require parole revocation to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and that a decision to revoke parole must attend to the reasons an individual [noncitizen] received parole." Id. at 146 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It appears that the holdings of Barbosa da Cunha, Alvarez Ortiz, Cabrera Martinez, and/or Mata Velasquez may apply to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before 9/16/2026, 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, to the extent an unlawful arrest is alleged in the petition, the respondents also shall SHOW CAUSE on or before 9/16/2026 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 9/9/2026. (DDC)Chambers emailed a copy of this text order and the petition to usanyw-immigration-habeas@usdoj.gov. (Entered: 09/09/2026)

Sep 09, 2026

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

Sep 09, 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. (ARS)

#3

Sep 15, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance of Government Attorney: Adam A. Khalil, appearing on behalf of Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

#4

Sep 15, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 2 Text Order,,,,,,,,,,,,,, filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 09/15/2026)

#5

Sep 24, 2026

TEXT ORDER: 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 prior to his arrest. And 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).Because the petition alleged that the petitioner, Sohail Amatya, was arrested without a warrant or Notice to Appear, see Docket Item 4 at 2, the Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of the decisions described above, "[Amatya] is not entitled to immediate release..., including providing a copy of any warrant or Notice to Appear that the respondents say was issued." Docket Item 2.In response, the respondents acknowledged that the Notice to Appear "was issued on August 27, 2026, after [Amatya] was issued a warrant and arrested." Docket Item 4 at 2.Accordingly, because the petitioner was arrested without a warrant and because his removal proceedings were not pending at the time of his arrest, he is entitled to his immediate release and the respondents shall release him within 24 hours of this order. See Loaeza, 2026 WL 2150155, at *1-2 (noting 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" and thus ordering immediate release where Notice to Appear had neither been generated nor served on petitioner until after his arrest). The respondents may reimpose any conditions of release that were in place at the time at the time of Amatya's arrest but may not impose new conditions. On or before 9/28/2026, the respondents shall file an affidavit attesting to Amatya's release. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 9/24/2026. (AJM) (Entered: 09/24/2026)

#6

Sep 28, 2026

Letter filed by Michael Ball, Todd Blanche, Markwayne Mullin, Philip Rhoney, David Venturella re release. (Khalil, Adam) (Entered: 09/28/2026)

#7

Sep 29, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 6 Letter filed by Markwayne Mullin, David Venturella, Todd Blanche, Philip Rhoney, Michael Ball. The respondents have filed a letter, Docket Item 6, indicating that the petitioner was released in compliance with this Courts order, Docket Item 5. 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 9/29/2026. (AJM)Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 09/29/2026)

#8

Oct 15, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Sohail Amatya against David Venturella, Markwayne Mullin, Michael Ball, Philip Rhoney, Todd Blanche. Signed by Andrew W. Moeller, Clerk of Court on 10/15/2026. (DMK) (Entered: 10/15/2026)