Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
VAKHTANG AMBROLADZE,
Petitioner,
- against -
RAUL MALDONADO, Warden of the
Metropolitan Detention Center; WILLIAM
JOYCE, Acting Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Field Office Director; KRISTI
NOEM, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security;
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
26-CV-0473 (PKC)
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:
This is yet another case challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”)
“blanket ‘policy’ to detain ‘everyone who crossed the border,’ without regard to compliance
history, criminal record, or actual risk.” (Pet., Dkt. 1, ¶ 3); see, e.g., Goorakani v. Lyons, No. 25-
CV-9456 (DEH), 2025 WL 3632896, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2025). Here, Petitioner Vakhtang
Ambroladze seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, contending that
Respondents, by re-detaining Petitioner after a prior release on recognizance, without providing
notice, individualized justification, or a bond hearing, violated his due process rights. 	(See
generally Pet., Dkt. 1.) 	For the following reasons, the petition is GRANTED, and Respondents
are ordered to immediately release Petitioner from custody.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Vakhtang Ambroladze is a citizen of Georgia who entered the United States
without inspection on December 10, 2022. (Pet., Dkt. 1, ¶ 18.) Shortly thereafter, Petitioner was
Case 1:26-cv-00473-PKC Document 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
issued a Notice to Appear ordering him to appear before an immigration judge (“IJ”), and was
released from the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) “on his own
recognizance.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Thereafter, Petitioner filed an application for asylum. (Id. ¶ 19.)
In January 2026, after being in a car accident caused by another party, Respondents arrested
and detained Petitioner “without a warrant, without prior notice, without explanation, and without
any individualized assessment of risk.” 	(Id. ¶¶ 2, 20.) 	Petitioner currently is detained at the
Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. (Id. ¶ 20.) Petitioner has filed this petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting, inter alia, that he was
wrongfully detained under the mandatory detention provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A)
(“Section 1225(b)(2)(A)”), and that his detention with “no notice of revocation, no custody review,
no hearing, and no opportunity to contest detention” violated his due process rights. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 21,
24–29.)
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that the Court should reject the petition because Petitioner is subject to
mandatory detention pursuant to Section 1225(b)(2)(A). (Gov’t’s Resp. O.S.C., Dkt. 6, at 5–6.)
However, Respondents acknowledge that this Court’s decision in R.A.R.R. v. Almodovar et al.,
No. 25-CV-6597 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2025) (Oral Ruling and Docket Order), finding that a
non-citizen in similar circumstances to Petitioner’s could not be detained pursuant to Section
1225(b)(2)(A), “would control the outcome here, and recognize that it would be futile to repeat
[its] statutory arguments in opposing the habeas petition.” (Id. at 3.)1
1 Although the Court appreciates Respondents’ brevity as part of its desire to “conserve
judicial and party resources,” (Gov’t’s Resp. O.S.C., Dkt. 6, at 1), this brevity is a pittance in light
the toll Respondents have exacted on the judiciary by continuing to pursue their new mandatory
detention policy, despite its near-universal rejection by district courts in this Circuit. 	Compare
(Pet., Dkt. 1, ¶ 20 (describing arrest in January 2026)), with Barco Mercado v. Francis, No. 25-
CV-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *13–14 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (extensively
Case 1:26-cv-00473-PKC Document 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
I. 	Petitioner Was Wrongly Detained Under 28 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
The Court adheres to its conclusion in R.A.R.R. that 28 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (“Section
1226(a)”), not Section 1225(b)(2)(A), governs Petitioner’s detention. 	Section 1225(b)(2)(A)
provides that an alien who is “an applicant for admission” “shall be detained” “if the examining
immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt
entitled to be admitted.” 	8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). 	As this Court in R.A.R.R. and a chorus of
district courts have held, a non-citizen who is already in the country pending the outcome of
removal proceedings is not “seeking admission,” and therefore is not subject to Section
1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory detention. See R.A.R.R., No. 25-CV-6597 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 19,
2025) (Oral Ruling and Docket Order); Barco Mercado v. Francis, No. 25-CV-6582 (LAK), 2025
WL 3295903, at *5–10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (citing Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281,
289 (2018)) (similarly deriving this conclusion from the “text, structure, and history” of Sections
1225 and 1226); see also id. at *13–14 (compiling cases). Because Petitioner arrived in December
2022, and was released on his own recognizance, he was not “seeking admission” when he was
arrested in January 2026, and therefore is not subject to mandatory detention. (See Pet., Dkt. 1);
Barco Mercado, 2025 WL 3295903, at *5; Rivera Esperanza v. Francis, No. 25-CV-8727, 2025
WL 3513983, at *1–6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2025) (compiling cases).
Rather, Petitioner’s detention is governed by Section 1226(a), which provides that “[o]n a
warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision
on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.” However, immigration authorities
may “release” the non-citizen on bond. 	8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2). 	Re-detention under Section
documenting rejection of Respondents’ argument in this Circuit, beginning in the summer of
2025).
Case 1:26-cv-00473-PKC Document 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
1226(a) requires an immigration officer to exercise discretion to revoke prior release. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 236.1(c)(8)–(9). Here, Respondents effectively admit that they did not exercise discretion to
re-detain Petitioner; rather, they detained Petitioner pursuant to Section 1225(b)(2)(A). (Gov’t’s
Resp. O.S.C., Dkt. 6, at 2.) Because Respondents detained Petitioner pursuant to the wrong statute,
his due process rights were violated. 	See Barco Mercado, 2025 WL 3295903, at *12; M.K. v.
Arteta, No. 25-CV-9918 (LAK), 2025 WL 3720779, at *8–9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2025) (“Having
determined that [Section 1225(b)(1)] is inapplicable to [an individual living in the United States
for over two years], the Court concludes that [individual’s] detention pursuant to the wrong statute
is unlawful.”); Yao v. Almodovar, No. 25-CV-9982 (PAE), 2025 WL 3653433, at *11 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 17, 2025) (concluding that “ICE’s discretion-free detention of [petitioner] abridged his rights
under [Section] 1226 and violated due process,” and compiling cases reaching the same solution);
Lieogo v. Freden, No. 6:25-CV-06615 (EAW), 2025 WL 3290694, at *1–6 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 26,
2025) (same).
Given that Petitioner was not afforded process prior to his re-detention, the appropriate
remedy is release, not an order directing Respondents to give Petitioner a bond hearing. 	See
Chipantiza-Sisalema v. Francis, No. 25-CV-5528 (AT), 2025 WL 1927931, at *3–4 (S.D.N.Y.
July 13, 2025); Cardenas v. Almodovar, No. 25-CV-9169 (JMF), 2025 WL 3215573, at *3–4
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2025). Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner a writ of habeas corpus.
CONCLUSION
The Court grants the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Respondents are directed to release
Petitioner from custody immediately and no later than within 24 hours of this Order. Respondents
are further directed to return to Petitioner any and all funds or property seized from Petitioner at
the time of his arrest. Respondents are directed to certify compliance with the Court’s Order by
filing a letter on the docket no later than 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, February 5, 2026. The Court further
Case 1:26-cv-00473-PKC Document 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
orders that Petitioner must not be re-detained by Respondents without notice and an opportunity
to be heard at a pre-deprivation bond hearing before a neutral decisionmaker, at which
Respondents will have the burden of showing that Petitioner’s re-detention is authorized under
Section 1226(a). The deadline for Petitioner to apply for an award of reasonable fees and costs
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act is April 1, 2026. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to enter judgment consistent with this Order and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: February 4, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-00473-PKC Document 7 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>