Ancaipuro Ccorihuaman v. Genalo et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FRANCISCO ANCAIPURO
CCORIHUAMAN,
Petitioner,
-against-
KENNETH GENALO, in his official capacity
as Field Office Director of New York,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
TODD M. LYONS, the Acting Director of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
KRISTI NOEM, the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, PAMELA
BONDI, the Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-CV-00554 (HG)
HECTOR GONZALEZ, United States District Judge:
On December 26, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detained
Petitioner Francisco Ancaipuro Ccorihuaman (“Petitioner”) after agents approached him on the
street, purportedly looking for another individual. Petitioner was then transferred to the
Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, and now seeks a writ of habeas corpus,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1.1 For the following reasons, his Petition is
GRANTED.
1 	Unless otherwise indicated, when quoting cases and the parties’ papers, the Court omits
all internal quotation marks, alteration marks, emphases, footnotes, and citations. The Court
refers to the pages assigned by the Electronic Case Files system (“ECF”).
Case 1:26-cv-00554-HG Document 12 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a Peruvian national who arrived in the United States approximately 20 years
ago. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 24–25, 32. Petitioner filed an application for asylum sometime after his
arrival in the United States; that application is currently pending. See id. ¶ 26.
On January 31, 2026, Petitioner initiated the instant action by filing a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus. ECF No. 1 (“Petition”). Two days later, the Court issued an Order to Show
Cause directing the government to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be
granted, why it should not be ordered to immediately release Petitioner from detention, and
whether the instant Petition is controlled by this Court’s prior opinions in O.F.B. v. Maldonado,
No. 25-cv-6336, 2025 WL 3277677 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025), R.P.L. v. Maldonado, No. 25-cv-
6886, 2025 WL 3731864 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2025), and Ndiaye v. Francis, No. 26-cv-0069,
2026 WL 99930 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2026).2 See Feb. 2, 2026, Text Order.
The government filed its response on February 6, 2026, see ECF No. 11 (“Response”),
where it noted that, while it disagrees with the Court’s rejection of its argument that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225 applies to noncitizens who had been living in the country before they were detained, it
nevertheless “acknowledge[s] that [this Court’s] prior decisions in O.F.B., R.P.L., and Ndiaye
would control the outcome here.” Id. at 3.
The Court issues the instant Order before Petitioner’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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
2 	In the interest of judicial economy, the Court does not repeat the legal discussions and
analyses from those cases in this Order but instead incorporates same by reference herein.
Case 1:26-cv-00554-HG Document 12 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
LEGAL STANDARD
“The writ of habeas corpus stands as a safeguard against imprisonment of those held in
violation of the law.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 91 (2011); see also Ozturk v. Hyde,
136 F.4th 382, 393 (2d Cir. 2025). 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
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516–17 (2003)).
DISCUSSION
In the instant petition, Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus based on a violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, among other claims.3 See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 76–105.
In response, the government reiterates its now-familiar position—that “ICE has properly
detained Petitioner pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and that such detention is mandatory,”
ECF No. 11 at 2—despite sweeping rejection by district courts across the country. The
government also notes that “it would be futile to repeat the government’s statutory interpretation
arguments in opposing the [instant] habeas petition.” Id. at 3. The Court agrees with the
government on that point. It need not repeat its statutory interpretation here because the result of
this case is the same as that in O.F.B., 2025 WL 3277677, R.P.L., 2025 WL 3731864, and
Ndiaye, 2026 WL 99930. And, for the reasons this Court has already articulated in those cases
3 	The Court need not address Petitioner’s other claims, given its conclusion that
Petitioner’s detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
Case 1:26-cv-00554-HG Document 12 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
(and hundreds of others across the country), the Court concludes that Petitioner is currently being
detained pursuant to Section 1226 and in violation of his rights to due process under the Fifth
Amendment. See O.F.B., 2025 WL 3277677, at *3–6; R.P.L., 2025 WL 3731864, at *2–4;
Ndiaye, 2026 WL 99930, at *3; see also, e.g., Tacuri v. Genalo, No. 25-cv-06896, 2026 WL
35569, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2026) (collecting cases from courts “within the Eastern District of
New York . . . [that] have unanimously rejected the government’s interpretation.”).
Accordingly, because the “typical remedy” for “unlawful executive detention” is “of
course, release,” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008), the government’s ongoing detention
of Petitioner, in the face of yet another complete failure of process, entitles him to immediate
release, see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) (“[R]elease from illegal
custody” is the “usual remedy by which a man is restored again to his liberty, if he ha[s] been
against law deprived of it.”).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s detention violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED.
The government is directed to immediately release Petitioner from custody and is further
directed to certify compliance with the Court’s Order by filing a letter on the docket no later than
12:00 p.m. on February 9, 2026. 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 Respondents 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. United States
Case 1:26-cv-00554-HG Document 12 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, No. 25-cv-5279, 2025 WL 3281514, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025)
(ordering government release petitioner from “restrictions on his liberty imposed as a result of
his unlawful [detention] . . . including the ankle monitor and reporting requirements”). This
Order includes “an injunction barring deprivation [of any] of the [Petitioner’s] rights without the
requisite procedural protections.” Id.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment consistent with the Order
and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Hector Gonzalez
HECTOR GONZALEZ
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 6, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00554-HG Document 12 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>