Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
AI MING HUANG,
Petitioner,
-against-
PAMELA BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL;
KRISTI NOEM, U.S. SECRETARY OF
HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents.
------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-CV-406 (EK)
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Ai Ming Huang has been detained by U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). 	Currently in custody in
Louisiana, she seeks a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 	To
preserve the status quo pending decision, she has applied (on an
ex parte basis) for a temporary restraining order that would
preclude the government from removing her from the United States
while the instant petition is pending.
The primary thrust of Huang’s petition is that the
government has detained her in reliance on an order of exclusion
that never actually issued. 	She writes that on January 12, the
government invoked a 1992 Exclusion Order, but that she has
never received that document — in 1992 or since. 	She also says
that she has searched the Executive Office for Immigration
Case 1:26-cv-00406-EK Document 7 Filed 01/24/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
Review’s Automated Case Information System (“ACIS”) and her
USCIS record for any indication of that order, without success.1
Given the likelihood that a deportation effectuated
pursuant to no lawful order would violate the due process
clause, and the harm that would result from that action, the
government is hereby directed not to remove, deport, or
otherwise transfer Ms. Huang outside the country prior to
February 4, 2026, absent further order of this Court.
In addition, the government is directed to show cause,
on or before January 29, why the interim relief sought by the
petitioner should not be continued as a preliminary injunction.
The petitioner should respond on or before February 5; and the
government should reply within three business days of the
petitioner’s response. 	The parties’ submissions should address,
among any other subject they choose, (i) whether judicial review
of the petition is permissible in this Court, given 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252;2 and (ii) whether venue is proper in this District, given
1 This may not mean what the petitioner suggests. 	The ACIS system was
activated in 1995 — several years after the date of the alleged order in
petitioner’s case. 	See Customer Service Initiatives, EOIR,
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/customer-service-initiatives (last visited Jan.
24, 2026). 	At inception, it appears to have been a telephonic system reached
by toll-free number. 	Id. 	Today, the online system disclaims complete
accuracy. 	It states, “[n]ot all cases, or all information about a case is
displayed.” 	Automated Case Information, EOIR,
https://acis.eoir.justice.gov/en/ (last visited Jan. 23, 2026).
2 See, e.g., Khalil v. President, --- F.4th --- (3d Cir. 2026) (holding
that where petitioner “challenges both his removal and his detention pending
removal proceedings,” those claims “collide with one of the INA’s
jurisdictional bars: 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)”); Kumarasamy v. Att’y Gen. of
U.S., 453 F.3d 169, 172 (3d Cir. 2006) (Section 1252 does not bar review when
Case 1:26-cv-00406-EK Document 7 Filed 01/24/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
that the petitioner is in custody in Louisiana.3 	Petitioner is
directed to serve her petition, her motion, and this order on
the government by end of day on Monday, January 26, irrespective
of the weather.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated: 	January 24, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
petitioner “is not seeking review of an order of removal” but rather “claims
that his deportation was illegal because there was no order of removal.”);
Madu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 470 F.3d 1362, 1366-67 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding
that “a petitioner who contests the very existence of an order of removal
does not seek review of an order of removal within the meaning of” 8 U.S.C. §
1252).3 See, e.g., Khalil v. Joyce, 771 F. Supp. 3d 268, 281-82 (S.D.N.Y.
2025) (analyzing whether petition including core and non-core habeas claims
could proceed outside the district of confinement); S.N.C. v. Sessions, 325
F. Supp. 3d 401, 406-09 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“[F]or non-core challenges, courts
in this Circuit have relied on a combination of venue and personal
jurisdiction principles in deciding whether they have jurisdiction.”); Somir
v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 2d 215, 218-19 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (finding venue
proper in the Eastern District of New York where petitioner lived in Queens
and petitioner’s activities in the United States were “concentrated in this
judicial district”).
Case 1:26-cv-00406-EK Document 7 Filed 01/24/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>