Western District of New York • 1:26-cv-01976

#1

Sep 14, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Quan Lin. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (KKR) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#2

Sep 14, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Quan Lin. (KKR) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#3

Sep 14, 2026

MOTION for Expedited Hearing by Quan Lin. (KKR) (Entered: 09/14/2026)

#4

Sep 14, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Quan Lin; granting 3 MOTION to Expedite filed by Quan Lin. So that the petitioner can fully participate in these proceedings, 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 9/21/2026, 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 9/21/2026 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 9/14/2026. Chambers emailed a copy of this text order and the petition to usanyw-immigration-habeas@usdoj.gov. (DDC)This was mailed to: the petitioner. (Entered: 09/14/2026)

Sep 14, 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. Clerk mailed to petitioner the Prisoner Pro Se Packet, consisting of Privacy Notice, Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge, and Civil Case Timeline. (KKR)

Sep 14, 2026

Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number 100010450 (KKR)

#5

Sep 18, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Brendan T. Cullinane on behalf of Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Warden of Buffalo Service Processing Center (Cullinane, Brendan) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

#6

Sep 18, 2026

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Warden of Buffalo Service Processing Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-H)(Cullinane, Brendan) (Entered: 09/18/2026)

#7

Sep 21, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Quan Lin On 9/14/2026, this Court ordered the respondents to show cause why, in light of the Second Circuit's decision in Barbosa 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 4 .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 1-2 (quoting Barbosa da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 69). 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 respondents argue that the burden of proof at a bond hearing under section 1226(a) should be on the petitioner, however, they do not distinguish this case from Alvarez Ortiz. See id. at 1, 3. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Alvarez Ortiz and da Cunha, this Court GRANTS the petition 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 9/29/2026, 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. Finally, on or before 9/29/2026, the petitioner may respond to respondents' arguments in support of his request for immediate release. SO ORDERED. Issued by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 9/21/2026. (AJM)This was mailed to: the petitioner. (Entered: 09/21/2026)

#8

Sep 29, 2026

NOTICE by Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons, Warden of Buffalo Service Processing Center (Notice of Bond Hearing) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Bond Order)(Cullinane, Brendan) (Entered: 09/29/2026)

#9

Sep 30, 2026

TEXT ORDER re 8 Notice of Bond Hearing filed by Warden of Buffalo Service Processing Center, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons. The respondents have filed a letter, Docket Item 8, indicating that an immigration judge held a bond hearing in compliance with this Court's order, Docket Item 7, but found that the government met its burden on risk of flight. 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 9/30/2026. (AJM)This was mailed to: The petitioner.Clerk to Follow up (Entered: 09/30/2026)

#10

Oct 15, 2026

JUDGMENT in favor of Quan Lin against Warden of Buffalo Service Processing Center, Todd Blanche, Todd Lyons. Signed by Andrew W. Moeller, Clerk of Court on 10/15/2026. (CGJ)This was mailed to: Petitioner. (Entered: 10/15/2026)