Kumar v. Phillips et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VISHANT KUMAR,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL T. PHILLIPS, In his official
capacity as the Administrative Director of
the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, et
al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
6:25-CV-6834-EAW
Petitioner Vishant Kumar (“Petitioner”) is a civil immigration detainee alleging that
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 at the Buffalo Federal Detention
Facility in Batavia, New York. (Id. at ¶ 2).
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 December 31, 2025, the Court directed the parties to
Case 6:25-cv-06834-EAW Document 7 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
confer on or before January 6, 2026, to attempt to reach agreement on an abbreviated
briefing schedule for this matter. (Dkt. 2).
In response to the Court’s Text Order, 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. 6). 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 20, 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
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.
Case 6:25-cv-06834-EAW Document 7 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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 23, 2026.
SO ORDERED.
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Dated: 	January 12, 2026
Rochester, New York
Case 6:25-cv-06834-EAW Document 7 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 3