Kumar v. Rhoney et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROHAN KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
PHILIP RHONEY, in his official capacity
as Deputy Field Office Director, Buffalo
Field Office, U.S. Immigration &
Customs Enforcement, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
6:26-CV-6039-EAW
Petitioner Rohan Kumar (“Petitioner”) is a civil immigration detainee alleging that
he is being detained in United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody
pending removal proceedings in violation of the United States Constitution and seeks relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	(Dkt. 1). Petitioner is being held in the custody of the Buffalo
Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Id. at ¶ 7).
The Court has issued written decisions in Quituizaca Quituisaca v. Bondi, No. 6:25-
CV-6527-EAW, 2025 WL 3264440 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2025), and Lieogo v. Freden, No.
6:25-CV-06615 	EAW, 	2025 WL 3290694 	(W.D.N.Y. 	Nov. 	26, 2025), 	finding 	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. On January 12, 2026, the Court directed Respondents to
Case 6:26-cv-06039-EAW Document 5 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
show cause on or before January 20, 2026, why, in light of those decisions, 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 order to show cause, Respondents acknowledge that this Court’s
prior rulings in the identified cases concern the same or similar challenges to the
government policy or practice at issue in the instant petition and would direct the same
outcome in this matter entitling Petitioner to a bond hearing. (Dkt. 4). The Court agrees.
Accordingly, for the same reasons be set forth in Quituizaca Quituisaca, 2025 WL
3264440, and Lieogo, 2025 WL 3290694, the petition is granted to the extent that Petitioner
seeks a bond hearing, and a bond hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the
following terms:
1. 	Petitioner shall be granted a bond hearing before an immigration judge (“IJ”)
on or before January 23, 2026. If Petitioner requests a continuance that results in a bond
hearing date outside this deadline, such a continuance will comply with this Order as long
as the new date falls within a reasonable time period.
2. 	At this bond hearing, the government will have the burden to demonstrate
dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. 	In deciding whether the
government has met its burden of proof, the IJ must consider whether less-restrictive
Case 6:26-cv-06039-EAW Document 5 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
alternatives to detention can reasonably address the government’s interest in Petitioner’s
continued detention.
3. 	If the IJ finds that the government has not met its burden, then in setting any
bond the IJ must consider Petitioner’s ability to pay and alternative conditions of release.
4. 	Thus, in order to continue Petitioner’s detention after any bond hearing, the
IJ must find by clear and convincing evidence and make findings that no condition or
combination of conditions of release can reasonably ensure Petitioner’s appearance and the
safety of the community—that is, even with conditions, Petitioner presents an identified
and articulable risk of flight or a threat to another person or the community.
5. 	Respondents are directed to file a status update with the Court on or before
January 27, 2026.
SO ORDERED.
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Dated: 	January 15, 2026
Rochester, New York
Case 6:26-cv-06039-EAW Document 5 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 3