Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
OMAR A. GARCIA,
Petitioner,
– against –
PAM BONDI, Attorney General of the
United States, KRISTI NOEM, Secretary
of the Department of Homeland
Security, TODD M. LYONS, Acting
Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, in their official
capacities, BRIAN FLANAGAN, Acting
Deputy, Field Office Director for ICE in
New York City Area, in their official
capacities,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-cv-01155 (NCM)
NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge:
On February 9, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested
and detained petitioner Omar A. Garcia. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) ¶ 3,
ECF No. 1. Petitioner is currently being detained by respondents at the Metropolitan
Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York. Pet. ¶ 3. He has not been provided with
a bond hearing. Pet. ¶¶ 9–10. He now petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. ¶ 12. For the reasons discussed below, the Petition is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of Honduras who entered the United States approximately
thirty years ago. Pet. ¶ 2. Petitioner alleges that his U.S. citizen brother filed a Form I-130,
Petition for Alien Relative, on his behalf in 2015, which is still pending before U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services. Pet. ¶ 4. Petitioner and his partner have seven
Case 1:26-cv-01155-NCM Document 5 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
children who range in age from 27 years old to one year old. Pet. ¶ 5. All of his children are
U.S. citizens. Pet. ¶ 5.
Petitioner was arrested and detained by ICE on February 9, 2026. Pet. ¶ 3. During
the instant litigation, the Court ordered respondents to submit “any records, documents,
or other information in petitioner’s immigration file, as well as any underlying records
relied upon in [their] submission not yet filed by petitioner, and records indicating
whether any property was seized from petitioner at the time of arrest.” Scheduling Order
3, ECF No. 3. Respondents produced documents pursuant to the order, Resp. Exhibits,
ECF No. 4 at 4–20, that include a Form I-200 Warrant for Arrest of Alien by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued for petitioner. Resp., Ex. A (“DHS
Warrant”), ECF 4 at 6–7. 1 The warrant indicated that the signing immigration officer
determined there is “probable cause to believe [petitioner] is removeable” and that the
“determination is based upon . . . biometric confirmation of the subject’s identity and a
records check of federal databases that affirmatively indicate, by themselves or in addition
to other reliable information, that the subject either lacks immigration status or
notwithstanding such status is removable under U.S. immigration law.” DHS Warrant 1.
Following his arrest, ICE issued petitioner a Form I-862 Notice to Appear (“NTA”)
charging that petitioner is inadmissible pursuant to § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration
and Naturalization Act (“INA”). Resp. 1, ECF No. 4.
On February 27, 2026, petitioner initiated the instant action by filing for a writ of
habeas corpus from this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. 1, 12. The same day, the Court
issued an order preserving its jurisdiction, and directing respondents to state the statutory
1 	Throughout this Order, page numbers for docket filings refer to the page numbers
assigned in ECF filing headers.
Case 1:26-cv-01155-NCM Document 5 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
provision(s) under which respondents assert the authority to detain petitioner, and to
address whether the instant petition is controlled by the Court’s prior opinions in Y- C- v.
Genalo, No. 25-cv-06558, 2025 WL 3653496 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025), Crespo Tacuri v.
Genalo, No. 25-cv-06896, 2026 WL 35569 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2026), Terrero v. Tsoukaris,
No. 26-cv-00869 (E.D.N.Y). Scheduling Order 2. The government filed a response on
March 4, 2026, stating that it is respondents’ position that petitioner’s detention is subject
to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Resp. 2. Respondents explain that while they “disagree with
the Court’s prior statutory analysis concerning [§ 1225(b)(2)(A)] . . . the facts of this case
are not materially distinguishable.” Resp. 2.
Although petitioner has not yet filed a reply, “[t]he Court issues the instant Order
before [p]etitioner’s deadline to file a reply in light of its obligation to ‘determine the facts,
and 	dispose’ 	of 	habeas 	petitions 	expeditiously, 	‘as 	law 	and 	justice 	require.’”
Ccorihuaman v. Genalo, No. 26-cv-00554, 2026 WL 328983, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2026)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2243).
LEGAL STANDARD
Section 2241 authorizes federal district courts “to grant a writ of habeas corpus
whenever a petitioner is ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.’” Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 140 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3)). Under Section 2241, “[f]ederal courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas
corpus claims by noncitizens challenging the constitutionality of their 	detention.”
Rodriguez-Acurio v. Almodovar, No. 25-cv-06065, 2025 WL 3314420, at *8 (E.D.N.Y.
Nov. 28, 2025) (citing Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 850 (2d Cir. 2020)).
Case 1:26-cv-01155-NCM Document 5 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends that his detention violates the INA and the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment among other arguments. 2 Pet. ¶¶ 39–49. The government’s
response does not meaningfully dispute these assertions. 3 However, respondents declare
their disagreement with “the Court’s statutory analysis concerning [§ 1225(b)(2)(A)] and
note that their position has been adopted and affirmed by courts within the Second and
Fifth Circuits. Resp. 2 n.3. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by this Court in Y-C-, and
Crespo Tacuri, which are incorporated here by reference, the Court concludes that
petitioner is being unlawfully detained pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1226 and in violation of his
rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment. See Y-C-, 2025 WL 3653496, at *7;
Crespo Tacuri, 2026 WL 35569, *7; Terrero v. Tsoukaris, No. 26-cv-00869 (E.D.N.Y.
Mar. 4, 2026), ECF No. 19; see also Ccorihuaman, 2026 WL 328983, at *2. “Habeas is at
its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention” and “[t]he typical remedy for such
detention is, of course, release.” Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008). The Court
therefore deems petitioner entitled to immediate release.
2 	Petitioner also brings a cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act. Pet.
¶¶ 47–49. Respondents argue that the Court “should not entertain the APA claim” because
the “waiver of sovereign immunity in the APA is only for agency action ‘for which there is
no adequate remedy in a court.’” Resp. 2 n.2 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 704). The Court’s Order
does not reach petitioner’s argument under the APA or respondents’ objections.
3 	For this reason, and for the avoidance of doubt, the Court does not address any legal
or factual argument that respondents do not raise here or did not raise in their briefing
before this Court in Crespo Tacuri and Y- C-. See Catania v. United Fed’n of Tchrs., No.
21-cv-01257, 2023 WL 1962533, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2023) (“Courts generally do not
decide issues not raised by the parties.” (quoting Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 482 (2009)
(Alito, J., concurring))); see also Russell v. Bd. of Plumbing Exam’rs, 1 F. App’x 38, 41 (2d
Cir. 2001) (summary order) (“We are, however, troubled by the district court reaching an
issue neither pressed nor briefed before it, and urge against such a practice in the future.”).
Case 1:26-cv-01155-NCM Document 5 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that petitioner’s detention violates the
INA and the Due Process Clause. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is therefore
GRANTED.
Respondents are directed to release petitioner from custody within 24 hours of this
Order and file a letter on the docket no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 6, 2026 certifying
their compliance. The Court further orders that petitioner shall not be re-detained without
notice and an opportunity to be heard at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral
decisionmaker, where the government will have the burden of showing that his detention
is authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). For the avoidance of doubt, the Court concludes
that petitioner “is entitled to release from the unlawful restrictions on his liberty—which
means, in the circumstances here, restoration of . . . the status quo ante.” Khabazha v. ICE,
No. 25-cv-05279, 2025 WL 3281514, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025) (ordering government
to release petitioner from “restrictions on his liberty imposed as a result of his unlawful
[detention] . . . including the ankle monitor and reporting requirements”); see also
Ccorihuaman, 2026 WL 328983, at *2. This Order includes “an injunction barring
deprivation of any of . . . [p]etitioner’s rights without the requisite procedural protections.”
Khabazha, 2025 WL 3281514, at *8; see also Ccorihuaman, 2026 WL 328983, at *2.
Petitioner’s March 9, 2026 deadline to file a reply and the hearing scheduled for
March 11, 2026 are hereby adjourned.
Case 1:26-cv-01155-NCM Document 5 Filed 03/05/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Should the petitioner seek an award of reasonable fees and costs under the Equal
Access to Justice Act, he may file a letter application on the docket within thirty days of
this Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment consistent with
the Order and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Natasha C. Merle____
NATASHA C. MERLE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	March 5, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-01155-NCM Document 5 Filed 03/05/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>