Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge:
On February 1, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested and
detained the petitioner as he left his house to go to the store. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 25.)1 The petitioner
is currently detained in the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York.
(ECF No. 8 at 2.) The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(ECF No. 1.) The Court grants the petition, as explained below.
1 The Court granted the petitioner’s request to proceed anonymously on February 3, 2026. (ECF Nos. 3,
5.)
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
J.G.I.,
Petitioner,
– against –
KENNETH GENALO, in his official capacity
as Field Office Director of New York,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD
LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting
Director U.S. Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, in her official
capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security;
PAM BONDI, in her official capacity as
Attorney General; and ANTHONY J.
LAROCCO, in his official capacity as Sheriff of
Nassau County, New York and Warden of the
Nassau County Jail,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
26-CV-581 (AMD)
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
Case 1:26-cv-00581-AMD Document 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
BACKGROUND2
The petitioner is a 39-year-old asylum seeker from Guatemala. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 18.) He
came to the United States from Guatemala in 2012, and entered the country without inspection.
(Id.) ICE detained him on May 22, 2018, and placed him in removal proceedings. (Id. ¶ 19;
ECF No. 8-1 ¶¶ 6–7.) According to the documentation that ICE prepared at the time, the
petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). (ECF No. 1 ¶ 19 (citing ECF No. 1-2 at 2).)
On November 13, 2018, represented by counsel, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum,
Withholding of Removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture based on his fear
of returning to Guatemala. (Id. ¶¶ 20–21.) The immigration court held a § 1226(a) bond hearing
the same day and granted bond in the amount of $6,000. (Id. ¶ 22; ECF No. 8-1 ¶ 12.)3 He was
released from immigration detention when the bond was paid. (Id. ¶ 22; ECF No. 8-1 ¶ 12.)
Since his release in 2018, the petitioner has lived on Long Island. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 23.) He
continued his application for asylum in “non-detained” immigration court, and was preparing
with counsel for his next hearing, scheduled for July 14, 2026. (Id.) The petitioner injured his
knee in a fall and had surgery in July 2025. (Id. ¶ 24.) He has been going physical therapy
appointments, but still has limited mobility and uses a cane, which has made it difficult for him
to return to work. (Id.)
2 The Court bases the discussion of the facts, which are undisputed unless otherwise noted, on the parties’
submissions, including exhibits. See Hyppolite v. Noem, No. 25-CV-4304, 2025 WL 2829511, at *2 n.1
(E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2025); Munoz Materano v. Arteta, No. 25-CV-6137, 2025 WL 2630826, at *1 n.1
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2025).
The Court has reviewed all the submissions and finds that the petition “present[s] only issues of law.”
Accordingly, the Court can decide the petition without a hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (directing courts
to “determine the facts, and dispose” of habeas petitions expeditiously, “as law and justice require”); see
also Tumba Huamani v. Francis, No. 25-CV-8110, 2025 WL 3079014, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4,
2025).
3 The petitioner had one arrest, but the charges were dismissed. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 22.) The immigration
judge considered the fact of the arrest in determining whether to grant a bond. (Id.)
Case 1:26-cv-00581-AMD Document 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
At about 5:00 p.m. on February 1, 2026, the petitioner informed his Brooklyn Defender
Services social worker that ICE agents arrested and detained him as he was going to the store.
(Id. ¶ 25.) The social worker determined that he was calling from Nassau County Jail. (Id.) The
petitioner was transferred to Delaney Hall Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey, and then to
the MDC in Brooklyn. (ECF No. 8 at 2 n.2.)
On February 2, 2026 — the day after the petitioner was detained — his counsel filed an
emergency petition for habeas relief. (ECF No. 1.) The next day, the Court ordered the
government to show cause why the petition should not be granted. (ECF Order dated Feb. 3,
2026.)4 The government responded to the order to show cause on February 6, 2026. (ECF No.
8.)
LEGAL STANDARD
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2241 “authorizes a district court to
grant a writ of habeas corpus whenever a petitioner is ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution
or law or treaties of the United States.’” Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 140 (2d Cir. 2003)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)). “Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus claims by
non-citizens challenging the constitutionality of their detention.” Lopez v. Sessions, No. 18-CV-
4189, 2018 WL 2932726, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2018) (citing Denmore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510,
516–17 (2003)).
4 The Court also ordered the government not to remove the petitioner from the United States or transfer
him out of the Eastern District of New York during the pendency of these proceedings. (See ECF Order
dated Feb. 3, 2026.) At the time of the Court order, ICE had already scheduled the petitioner’s transfer
to Delaney Hall Detention Facility because the Nassau County Correction Center is a temporary staging
facility. (ECF No. 8 at 2 n.2.) ICE subsequently placed a notification on an internal database reflecting
the Court’s order, and the petitioner was transferred to the MDC in Brooklyn. (Id.)
Case 1:26-cv-00581-AMD Document 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
DISCUSSION
In seeking a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner alleges that his detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(2)(A) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and violates due process
because there has been no individualized review, and because the circumstances have not
changed since he was released in 2018.
The Court finds, for the reasons stated in Ye v. Maldonado, No. 25-CV-6417, 2025 WL
3521298 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2025), and in Judge Hector Gonzalez’s decision in O.F.B. v.
Maldonado, No. 25-CV-6336, 2025 WL 3277677 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025), that the petitioner,
who was released from ICE detention after a bond hearing in 2018, is currently being detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and in violation of his rights to due process under the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution.5 Furthermore, the Court finds that even if Section 1225 applied
to the petitioner’s detention, the petitioner was still entitled to due process before the government
arrested him and detained him on February 1, 2026. Under either section of the INA, the
government has unlawfully detained the petitioner since February 1, 2026 because it denied him
due process. The “typical remedy” for “unlawful executive detention” is “of course, release.”
Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008). The government’s ongoing detention of the
petitioner, in the face of this complete failure of process, entitles him to immediate release.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241 is granted.
The government is directed to release the petitioner from custody immediately and within 24
hours of this Order. The government is further directed to return to the petitioner any and all
funds or property seized from the petitioner at the time of arrest. The government is directed to
5 Although the government disagrees with the Court’s decision in Ye, it does not dispute that Ye “would
control the result in this case . . . because, as in that case, ICE’s detention of the Petitioner in this case is
based on ICE’s position as to the scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and the Court rejected that position
in Ye.” (ECF No. 8 at 4.)
Case 1:26-cv-00581-AMD Document 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
certify compliance with the Court’s Order by filing a letter on the docket no later than 6:00 p.m.
on February 7, 2026. The Court further orders that the petitioner must 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). The deadline for the petitioner to apply for an award of
reasonable fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act is March 8, 2026.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF
No. 1, is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment consistent with
this Order and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
___________________________
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 6, 2026
s/Ann M. Donnelly
Case 1:26-cv-00581-AMD Document 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>