Ahmed v. Rhoney et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NASEER AHMED,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD LYONS, Acting Director U.S.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement;
KRISTI 	NOEM, 	U.S. 	Secretary 	of
Homeland Security; JOSEPH FREDEN,
Deputy 	Field 	Office 	Bufalo 	Federal
Detention 	Facility; 	and 	PAMELA 	J
BONDI, Attorney General, United States,
Respondents.
ORDER
6:25-CV-6662-EAW
Petitioner Naseer Ahmed (“Petitioner”) is a civil immigration detainee currently
held at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. Petitioner claims that he is being detained
in United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody pending removal
proceedings in violation of the United States Constitution. 	Therefore, Petitioner seeks
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 	(Dkt. 1). 	Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee and is
represented by counsel.
By Text Order dated November 14, 2025, the Court directed Respondents to show
cause on or before November 19, 2025, why, in light of the Court’s decisions in Quituizaca
Quituisaca v. Bondi, 25-cv-6527; Najeem v. Freden, 25-cv-6584; Mendoza v. Bondi, 25-
cv-954; and Martinez v. Bondi, 25-cv-6508, finding that noncitizens who are present in the
Case 6:25-cv-06662-EAW Document 6 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 4

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, the petition in this case should not be granted to the extent it seeks a bond hearing,
and the Court should not order that Petitioner receive a bond hearing at which the
government bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that
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, Petitioner’s ability
to pay. (Dkt. 2).
In response to the Court’s order to show cause, Respondents indicate that Petitioner
is not being detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), but instead is subject to expedited
removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(a)(iii), and proposes that they be permitted the
standard 45-day deadline to respond to an immigration habeas petition. (Dkt. 4). Petitioner
opposes a 45-day deadline and urges the Court to require Respondents to respond within 7
days. (Dkt. 5).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the Court must “forthwith award the writ or issue an order
directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears
from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 	The
statute further provides that the writ “shall be returned within three days unless for good
cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.” Id.
“However, as courts in this district have observed, ‘[o]beying the explicit directives
of section 2243 is not possible.’” Hayon v. Reardon, No. 20-CV-4668 (PKC), 2021 WL
25365, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2021) (quoting In re Habeas Corpus Cases, 216 F.R.D. 52,
Case 6:25-cv-06662-EAW Document 6 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 4

54 (E.D.N.Y. 2003)). 	Rather, the time limitations set forth therein are to be read in
conjunction with the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, and Habeas Rule 4 provides that the judge may order a response to a petition
“within a fixed time.” Oliphant v. Quiros, No. 3;09CV1771(VLB), 2010 WL 2011026, at
*1 (D. Conn. May 18, 2010) (quoting Rule 4).
Balancing the circumstances present here and the matters raised by Petitioner in the
petition, the Court concludes that good cause warrants affording Respondents more time
than is provided in § 2243 to provide a response to the petition, while at the same time
recognizing the appropriateness of expediting the standard deadlines set forth in the
Western District of New York’s standing order, In the Matter of E-Service of Habeas
Corpus Cases Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Apr. 11, 2018). Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that on or before December 5, 2025, Respondents shall file and serve
an answer responding to the allegations in the petition; and it is further
ORDERED that on or before December 5, 2025, Respondents shall file and serve,
in addition to the answer, a memorandum of law addressing each of the issues raised in
the petition and including citations to supporting authority and applicable sections of the
Immigration and Nationality Act; and it is further
ORDERED that on or before December 5, 2025, instead of an answer, Respondents
may 	file 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	the 	petition, 	accompanied 	by 	appropriate 	exhibits
demonstrating that an answer to the petition is unnecessary; and it is further
ORDERED that on or before December 12, 2025, Petitioner shall file a written
response. 	Oral argument will be heard on December 18, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. 	Counsel
Case 6:25-cv-06662-EAW Document 6 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 4

must appear in person unless permission is granted to attend remotely based upon a request
made at least 3 days prior to the appearance.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	November 18, 2025
Rochester, New York
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 6:25-cv-06662-EAW Document 6 Filed 11/18/25 Page 4 of 4