Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DANIEL PALACIOS,
Petitioner,
– against –
LADEON FRANCIS, New York Field
Office Director for U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
HERIBERTO TELLEZ, Warden of
Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC)
Brooklyn, PAMELA BONDI, Attorney
General of the United States, KRISTI
NOEM, Secretary of Homeland
Security, TODD M. LYONS, Acting
Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-cv-00847 (NCM)
NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge:
On February 2, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents
arrested Petitioner Daniel Palacios. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) ¶ 26, ECF
No. 1. Petitioner is presently in custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in
Brooklyn, New York and has not been provided a bond hearing. Pet. ¶¶ 26, 66. He now
petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. 2.1 For the
reasons discussed below, the petition is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner has lived in the United States continuously since 2005, when he entered
without inspection. Pet. ¶ 14. Petitioner is married to a United States citizen, has four
1 Throughout this Order, page numbers for docket filings refer to the page numbers
assigned in ECF filing headers.
Case 1:26-cv-00847-NCM Document 6 Filed 02/14/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
United States citizen children ages three through eighteen, and at present has resided in
the United States for over 20 years. Pet. ¶ 1. Petitioner is also actively pursuing an
immigration case: “[h]e currently has an approved I-360 (special immigrant visa), and a
pending application for an I601A (for provisional waiver to remain in the United States
while his further immigration applications are processed).” Pet. ¶ 2. Petitioner states that
he is eligible for cancellation of removal. Pet. ¶ 2.
Petitioner was detained on February 2, 2026 and is currently being held by ICE at
the MDC. Pet. ¶ 26. He commenced the instant action on February 13, 2026 by filing a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Pet. The same day, the Court issued an order
directing respondents to submit a letter that day stating: (1) the statutory provision(s)
under which respondents assert the authority to detain petitioner; and (2) whether there
is any material basis to distinguish the instant case from this Court's prior decisions in Y-
C- v. Genalo, No. 25-cv-06558, 2025 WL 3653496 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025), Crespo Tacuri
v. Genalo, No. 25-cv-06896, 2026 WL 35569 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2026), Yumbla v.
Maldonado, No. 26-cv-00594, 2026 WL 371414 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2026), Guanga Dutan
v. Tellez, No. 26-cv-00600, 2026 WL 377520 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2026), Erjigitov v. Lyons,
No. 26-cv-00624, 2026 WL 382489 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2026), or any other decision of this
Court. Scheduling Order 2–3, ECF No. 3. The government timely filed a response which
stated that “[r]espondents’ position is that [p]etitioner is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1225(b)(2)(A).” Resp. to Order to Show Cause (“Response”) 1, ECF No. 5. The response
further stated that “[i]n five decisions involving facts materially indistinguishable from
those alleged in the [p]etition, this Court has held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is the proper
detention authority. . . . Respondents acknowledge that if the Court applies the reasoning
of these five decisions here, they would control the result in this case.” Resp. 2–3.
Case 1:26-cv-00847-NCM Document 6 Filed 02/14/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
LEGAL STANDARD
Section 2241 authorizes federal district courts “to grant a writ of habeas corpus
whenever a petitioner is ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.’” Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 140 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3)). Under Section 2241, “[f]ederal courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas
corpus claims by noncitizens challenging the constitutionality of their detention.”
Rodriguez-Acurio v. Almodovar, No. 25-cv-06065, 2025 WL 3314420, at *8 (E.D.N.Y.
Nov. 28, 2025) (citing Velasco Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 850 (2d Cir. 2020)).
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends that he is being detained in violation of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pet. ¶¶ 67–
73. The government’s response does not dispute these assertions and concedes that the
case is materially indistinguishable from the Court’s prior decisions, only noting that
“since the Court issued the most recent decision, Erjigitov, two district court judges have
issued opinions that endorsed the Government’s interpretation of the relevant statutory
provisions.” Resp. 2 n.2. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by this Court in Crespo Tacuri
and Y- C-, which the Court incorporates here by reference, the Court concludes that
petitioner is being unlawfully detained pursuant to Section 1226 and in violation of his
rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment.2 See Y-C-, 2025 WL 3653496, at *7;
2 For the avoidance of doubt, the Court does not address any legal or factual
argument that respondents do not raise here or did not raise in their briefing in Y- C- or
Crespo Tacuri. See Catania v. United Fed’n of Tchrs., No. 21-cv-01257, 2023 WL 1962533,
at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2023) (“Courts generally do not decide issues not raised by the
parties.” (quoting Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 482 (2009) (Alito, J., concurring))); see also
Russell v. Bd. of Plumbing Exam’rs, 1 F. App’x 38, 41 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary order) (“We
are, however, troubled by the district court reaching an issue neither pressed nor briefed
before it, and urge against such a practice in the future.”).
Case 1:26-cv-00847-NCM Document 6 Filed 02/14/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Crespo Tacuri, 2026 WL 35569, *7; see also Ccorihuaman, 2026 WL 328983, at *2.
“Habeas is at its core a remedy for unlawful executive detention” and “[t]he typical remedy
for such detention is, of course, release.” Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008). The
Court therefore deems petitioner entitled to immediate release.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that petitioner’s detention violates the
INA and the Due Process Clause. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is therefore
GRANTED.
Respondents are directed to release the petitioner from custody within 24 hours of
this Order and file a letter on the docket no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 17, 2026
certifying their compliance. 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 the government 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. ICE, No. 25-cv-05279, 2025 WL 3281514, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2025)
(ordering government to release petitioner from “restrictions on his liberty imposed as a
result of his unlawful [detention] . . . including the ankle monitor and reporting
requirements”); see also Ccorihuaman, 2026 WL 328983, at *2. This Order includes “an
injunction barring deprivation of any of . . . [p]etitioner’s rights without the requisite
procedural protections.” Khabazha, 2025 WL 3281514, at *8; see also Ccorihuaman, 2026
WL 328983, at *2.
Case 1:26-cv-00847-NCM Document 6 Filed 02/14/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Petitioner’s February 18, 2026 deadline to file a reply and the hearing scheduled for
February 19, 2026 are hereby adjourned.
Should the petitioner seek an award of reasonable fees and costs under the Equal
Access to Justice Act, he may file a letter application on the docket within thirty days of
this Order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment consistent with
the Order and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Natasha C. Merle
NATASHA C. MERLE
United States District Judge
Dated: February 14, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-00847-NCM Document 6 Filed 02/14/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>