Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Luz Mary Patricia Valdes Acevedo,
Petitioner,
-v-
Nassau County Correctional Center,
United States Department of Homeland Security,
United States Department of Justice,
Respondents.
2:26-cv-250
(NJC)
OPINION AND ORDER
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY, United States District Judge:
Petitioner Luz Mary Valdes Acevedo is a Colombian national who was paroled into the
United States in 2009 and has been residing here ever since. She brings this action seeking a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2242 (“Petition”), arguing that Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has unlawfully detained her since January 15, 2026, when
she was suddenly arrested at the close of an interview related to her application for lawful
permanent residence status. The Petition names as Respondents the Nassau County Correctional
Center (“Nassau County Jail”), the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and the United
States Department of Justice (“DOJ,” collectively, “Respondents”).
Before me is Respondents’ Motion to Change Venue (“Motion”), which seeks to transfer
this case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. There is no dispute that following Ms. Valdes
Acevedo’s arrest in Long Island on the morning of January 15, 2026, she was detained in the
Nassau County Jail, or that, after much effort, her family learned of her detention there and
enlisted an attorney to file the Petition on her behalf that same day. Respondents nevertheless
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
argue that this Court is not the proper venue because, unbeknownst to her counsel and family,
ICE booked Ms. Valdes Acevedo out of the Nassau County Jail at around 5:15 pm that same day
and transported her to the Moshannon Valley Processing Center (“MVPC”) in Pennsylvania,
where she arrived at some time between 12:30 am and 1:05 am on January 16, 2026.
Respondents take the position that the Petition must be heard in the federal judicial district in
which Ms. Valdes Acevedo was located at 11:03 pm on January 15, 2026, when the Petition was
filed—yet fail to provide evidence showing where Ms. Valdes Acevedo was actually located at
that time. They nevertheless argue for transfer to the Middle District of Pennsylvania relying on
hearsay statements and a 10:08 pm receipt from a gas station in Mifflinville, Pennsylvania,
which they contend shows that Ms. Valdes Acevedo must have been located in that district at the
precise moment counsel filed the Petition. According to Respondents, this result is compelled by
the Second Circuit’s decision in Ozturk v. Hyde (“Ozturk II”), 136 F.4th 382 (2d Cir. 2025).
The facts, however, do not support Respondents’ theory of venue, and their strained
reading of Ozturk II goes far beyond the Second Circuit’s ruling in that case. As detailed below,
by the time the Petition was filed—at 11:03 pm on the date of Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s arrest—her
family and counsel had made extensive efforts to find out where ICE was detaining her. ICE
never provided any information about her whereabouts at any time, either through its Online
Detainee Locator System or when her children went to the location of her arrest or called the
phone number given to them. Rather, Ms. Valdes Acevedo called her daughter from the Nassau
County Jail, and her daughter delivered needed medications for her there. An ICE supervisory
officer at the jail told them that Ms. Valdes Acevedo might be moved out of the Nassau County
Jail and, if so, would be permitted to inform her family. Fearing that they would not know where
or when their mother would be taken to another location, her children searched the ICE Online
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 2 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Detainee Locator System using Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s name and Alien Registration Number
(“A-Number”) countless times, but each search yielded the result that there were no detainees
associated with that information. Her children called every number possible, including a number
given by the ICE supervisory officer, but the calls led to nowhere—the line was silent and then
would beep. Nor was Ms. Valdes Acevedo ever permitted to tell her family that she was being
moved out of Nassau County Jail, much less that she would be passing through New York City,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania en route to the MVPC. After the family secured counsel, counsel
too checked the ICE Online Detainee Locator System, but that search also yielded no
information about Ms. Valdes Acevedo. Lacking any reasonable basis to conclude that Ms.
Valdes Acevedo was located in any other judicial district, Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s counsel filed
the Petition here, in the Eastern District of New York, at 11:03 pm. It was not until the early
morning hours of January 16, 2026, after Ms. Valdes Acevedo arrived at the MVPC, that she was
able to call her family to inform them of her location.
Normally, the judicial district where a habeas petitioner is confined at the time a habeas
petition is filed is the sole judicial district in which the habeas petition may be heard—a
requirement known as the “district-of-confinement” rule. This general rule controls venue for a
habeas petition in the normal case, but there is an exception for extraordinary circumstances such
as those presented here, where Respondents fail to show Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s location at the
time the Petition was filed and where her counsel (and family) had no way of knowing that ICE
had moved her from the Eastern District of New York and may have been driving her through
the Middle District of Pennsylvania when the Petition was filed. On these facts, Ms. Valdes
Acevedo was held in an undisclosed location by an unknown custodian when the Petition was
filed, making it impossible to determine the district of her confinement—the precise
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 3 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
circumstances recognized to warrant application of what is known as the “unknown-custodian
exception” to the district-of-confinement rule. Applying this exception, Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s
district of confinement at the time the Petition was filed—and therefore the only judicial district
in which the Petition can be heard—is the last known district where she was detained: the
Eastern District of New York.
Contrary to Respondents’ contentions, the Second Circuit’s decision in Ozturk II does not
compel the conclusion that habeas venue lies in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In that case,
the Second Circuit declined to impose an emergency stay of the reasoned decision of the District
of Vermont requiring transfer of a habeas petitioner from Louisiana to Vermont. 136 F.4th at
390–404. In doing so, the Circuit did not resolve questions about how the district-of-confinement
rule and unknown-custodian exception would apply in all situations. Id. Moreover, the Second
Circuit’s analysis did not green light a venue rule by which the district of confinement for a
detained person being transported across judicial districts must be the district through which the
government may be transporting the petitioner at the minute a habeas petition is filed—without
any facts showing where the petitioner actually was at that time or that counsel had any
reasonable basis to believe that the petitioner could be located in that district.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained below, Respondents’ Motion is denied. The
Eastern District of New York is the one and only judicial district in which Ms. Valdes Acevedo
could have filed the Petition when she did and therefore is the proper venue.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
As noted, counsel filed the Petition on the night of January 15, 2026, seeking a writ of
habeas corpus directing Respondents to release Ms. Valdes Acevedo from detention, among
other relief. (ECF No. 1.) The next morning, on January 16, 2026, the Court ordered
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 4 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Respondents to show cause as to why the Petition should not be granted by January 19, 2026,
and ordered that Ms. Valdes Acevedo not be removed from the United States or from the Eastern
District of New York, the Southern District of New York, or the District of New Jersey. (ECF
No. 3.) Late on January 16, 2026, Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s counsel filed a letter informing the
Court that she had been transferred from Nassau County to Pennsylvania earlier that morning
and arguing against any forthcoming request by Respondents to transfer venue. (ECF No. 7.)
The Court issued an Order requiring Respondents to file a letter addressing where Ms.
Valdes Acevedo was detained by January 17, 2026. (Elec. Order, Jan. 16, 2026.) Respondents
timely filed a letter reporting that Ms. Valdes Acevedo was detained in the MVPC in
Pennsylvania and had been transferred from the Nassau County Jail prior to the issuance of the
January 16, 2026 Order, which prohibited Respondents from transferring her anywhere outside
of the Eastern or Southern Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey. (ECF No. 10 at
2.)
The following day, Respondents filed the Motion to Change Venue to the Middle District
of Pennsylvania, arguing that Ms. Valdes Acevedo was located in that district at the time her
Petition was filed. (Motion, ECF No. 13.) Along with the Motion, Respondents filed a
declaration from ICE Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer Kareem Johnson and a
receipt from a gas station located in Miffinville, Pennsylvania. ((“First Johnson Decl.”), ECF No.
13-1; ECF No. 13-2.) Johnson’s declaration consists of hearsay statements based not on personal
knowledge, but on information gathered from unidentified sources and persons. (First Johnson
Decl. ¶ 3 (“[T]he following representations are based on my review of Petitioner’s administrative
records, consultation with colleagues, ICE contractors, and ICE’s electronic records and
databases.”).) According to Johnson and these unspecified sources and persons, ICE contractors
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 5 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
stopped for gas “in the vicinity of Mifflinville, Pennsylvania” at around 10:08 pm on January 15,
2026, while transporting Ms. Valdes Acevedo from the Nassau County Jail to the MVPC. (First
Johnson Decl. ¶ 5; ECF No. 13-2.)
Ms. Valdes Acevedo opposed Respondents’ Motion. (ECF No. 14.) On January 20, 2026,
the Court scheduled a hearing on the Motion for January 21, 2026. (Elec. Order, Jan. 20, 2026.)
The Court further ordered the following:
Respondents must produce for testimony Kareem Johnson or any other ICE official with
personal knowledge of who had custody of Ms. Acevedo on January 15, 2026 at 11:08
PM. (See Decl. of Kareem Johnson (“Johnson Decl.”), ECF No. 13-1.) Johnson and other
ICE officials who will testify may appear via videoconference. Respondents must also
produce Petitioner, Ms. Acevedo, to appear via videoconference.
In lieu of producing Mr. Johnson or another ICE official with the personal knowledge
described above, Respondents may provide this Court with a filing identifying who
would be the proper respondent to the petition under the immediate-custodian rule as of
January 15, 2026 at 11:08 PM. See Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 390 (2d Cir. 2025)
(“Generally, [w]henever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present
physical custody within the United States, he must file the petition in the district of
confinement and name his immediate custodian as the respondent.”).
(Id.)1
On January 21, 2026, a few minutes prior to the hearing, Respondents filed an additional
letter with the Court, “in lieu of producing Kareem Johnson or another [ICE] official” in
response to the Court’s Order. ((“Jan. 21 Letter”), ECF No. 15.) Respondents take the position
that Michael T. Rose, the Acting Field Office Director for ICE Enforcement and Removal
Operations (“ERO”) for Philadelphia, would be “the proper respondent to the petition under the
immediate custodian rule.” (Id.) Respondents also submitted a second declaration from Johnson,
1 Although this Court’s January 20, 2026 Order mistakenly referred to 11:08 pm as the time the
Petition was filed, at the hearing, the Court and parties clarified that the correct time of filing was
11:03 pm, as shown on the Court’s Electronic Filing System. (See ECF No. 1.)
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 6 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
in which he states that Rose is the Acting Field Office Director for ICE ERO for the Philadelphia
ERO Field Office, which covers the entire state of Pennsylvania. ((“Second Johnson Decl.”),
ECF No. 16.)
At the hearing, the Court heard argument from the parties and the following witnesses
testified: Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s daughter, Mary Stephany Cardona Valdes Acevedo (“Ms.
Cardona Valdes”); Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s son, Martin Alejandro Rios Valdes (“Mr. Rios
Valdes”); Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s other son, Juan Carlos Cardona Valdes (“Mr. Cardona
Valdes”); and Ms. Valdes Acevedo herself, who joined through videoconference from the
MVPC in Phillipsburg, Pennsylvania.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court permitted the parties to provide any
supplemental briefing or evidentiary materials for the Court’s consideration in resolving the
Motion. On January 21, 2026, Ms. Valdes Acevedo filed a supplemental letter noting that she
would have to secure new counsel if the Petition were transferred to the Middle District of
Pennsylvania because her counsel is not a member of the Pennsylvania Bar. (ECF No. 17.) On
January 22, 2026, Respondents filed a supplemental letter concerning ICE’s policies on updating
the location of ICE detainees on their Online Detainee Locator System and providing additional
arguments for why the Middle District of Pennsylvania is the proper venue for this Petition.
((“Jan. 22 Letter”), ECF No. 18.) Later that day, Ms. Valdes Acevedo filed a brief reply. (ECF
No. 19.)
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 7 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following facts are taken from the parties’ evidentiary submissions, admissions made
by counsel during oral argument, and credible testimony from Ms. Valdes Acevedo, Ms.
Cardona Valdes, Mr. Rios Valdes, and Mr. Cardona Valdes at the hearing.2
On the morning of January 15, 2026, Ms. Valdes Acevedo and her son, Mr. Rios Valdes,
attended an interview with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) at 30
Barretts Avenue, Holtsville, New York, in support of her application for status as a lawful
permanent resident of the United States. (Pet. ¶¶ 23–25; First Johnson Decl. ¶ 4; Jan. 21 Hr’g Tr.
(“Hr’g Tr.”) 32:5–6.) At the end of the interview, ICE officers entered the room, presented an I-
205 Warrant of Removal, and arrested Ms. Valdes Acevedo. (Pet. ¶¶ 7, 25; First Johnson Decl.
¶ 4; Hr’g Tr. 32:9–14). No one told Mr. Rios Valdes where ICE officers were taking his mother,
even though he asked for this information during and after her arrest. (Hr’g Tr. 32:24–33:5.)
After ICE officers took Ms. Valdes Acevedo away, Mr. Rios Valdes stayed at the location and
asked “30 or more times” where she was taken, but the officers ordered him to leave the building
without providing any additional information. (Id. at 33:1–5.) He called his sister, Ms. Cardona
Valdes, to tell her that their mother had been arrested. (Id. at 14:3–5.) Unbeknownst to Mr. Rios
Valdes at the time, ICE transported Ms. Valdes Acevedo to the Nassau County Jail in East
Meadow, New York, where she was detained. (First Johnson Decl. ¶ 4.)
2 Although Respondents reserve the right to challenge the credibility of the witnesses who
testified at some future time (see Jan. 22 Letter at 2), the Court’s factual findings are based on
testimony that is credible in light of witnesses’ responses to questions and demeanor in Court.
Respondents were given ample opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses and elected to ask
only a handful of questions, none of which call into question the testimony that this Court finds
credible.
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 8 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
At around 9:50 am, Ms. Cardona Valdes met her brother at the USCIS building and went
inside to ask about her mother’s whereabouts, but unnamed officials said that they could not
share any information. (Hr’g Tr. 14:3–20.) Ms. Cardona Valdes waited outside of the USCIS
building for around one and a half hours before a federal vehicle arrived and “an older man with
glasses” exited the vehicle and told her she was not supposed to be standing there. (Id. at 15:6–
10.) Ms. Cardona Valdes told him that her mother was detained in the building. (Id. at 15:10–
12.) The man went inside the building to inquire and returned outside to tell Ms. Cardona Valdes
that her mother had been transferred elsewhere and was no longer inside the USCIS building.
(Id. at 15:13–20.)
Sometime between 10:30 am and 11:00 am, Ms. Cardona Valdes received a call from her
mother. (Id. at 15:22–24.) Mr. Rios Valdes was with her during the call and could hear the
conversation. (Id. at 33:10–17.) An unnamed ICE supervisory officer was present with Ms.
Valdes Acevedo in the Nassau County Jail while she spoke with her daughter on speakerphone.
(Hr’g Tr. at 16:15–18.) They discussed how Ms. Cardona Valdes could get needed medications
to her mother. (Id. at 17:6–17.) The officer informed Ms. Cardona Valdes that she could bring
the medicine to 100 Carman Avenue in East Meadow, New York—the address for the Nassau
County Jail. (Id. 17:14–15.) This call was the first time any family member learned that Ms.
Valdes Acevedo was detained in the Nassau County Jail. (Id. at 17:14–15; id. at 33:10–13.)
During the call, the officer also informed Ms. Cardona Valdes and Mr. Rios Valdes that they
could find their mother’s detention location by using ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System. (Id.
33:10–17)
At around 12:00 pm, Ms. Cardona Valdes went to the Nassau County Jail and dropped
off her mother’s cholesterol medication. (Hr’g Tr. 17:16–19:13.) An officer supervising Ms.
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 9 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
Valdes Acevedo called Ms. Cardona Valdes to inform her that she could return to drop off her
mother’s diabetes medication as well, and Ms. Cardona Valdes did so at around 3:50 pm. (Id.
19:20–20:2, 20:11–22.) The officer who took the medication told her that Ms. Valdes Acevedo
might be moved to 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York sometime that day. (Id. 24:8–18; id.
at 26:1–12.) He also said that Ms. Valdes Acevedo would be able to call her family if she was
moved and gave Ms. Cardona Valdes a phone number to call to inquire about her mother’s
whereabouts. (Id. 21:1–11; id. at 26:6–25.)
For the rest of the day, Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s family waited for a call informing them as
to whether she would be transferred to 26 Federal Plaza. (Hr’g Tr. 26:1–5.) They also made
extensive efforts to determine where she was located and whether she was being moved. Mr.
Rios Valdes searched the ICE Online Detainee Locator System using his mother’s name and
Alien Registration Number (“A-Number”) “countless times” between 10:00 am and around 5:00
pm, but each search yielded the result that there were no ICE detainees associated with Ms.
Valdes Acevedo’s A-Number. (Id. 34:4–24.) Ms. Cardona Valdes and other family members
gathered at her brother’s home to try to find more information about where Ms. Valdes Acevedo
was detained. (Id. 21:13–18.) They “call[ed] every number possible.” (Id. 22:13–17.) Ms.
Cardona Valdes called the phone number that the ICE supervisory officer provided her numerous
times, with the final call at around 6:15 pm. (Id. 22:18–22.) Every time she called the number,
however, “it would just be silent” and then it would beep. (Id. 21:5–8.)
Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s family secured counsel for her and met with counsel at around
8:00 pm on January 15, 2026. (Hr’g Tr. 9:13–14.) Based on what Ms. Cardona Valdes and other
family members relayed to him, counsel understood that Ms. Valdes Acevedo was detained in
the Nassau County Jail and might be moved to 26 Federal Plaza sometime that day. (Id. 9:15–
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 10 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
10:4.) Between around 8:30 pm and 9:00 pm, counsel searched ICE’s Online Detainee Locator
System for Ms. Valdes Acevedo, but the search yielded no information about her. (Id. 10:5–17.)
Therefore, with the knowledge that Ms. Valdes Acevedo was detained in the Nassau County Jail
at around 4:00 pm during a phone call with her daughter and that numerous, subsequent calls and
online searches of ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System yielded no information whatsoever
about Ms. Valdes Acevedo even as late as around 9:00 pm, counsel filed the Petition in the
Eastern District of New York at 11:03 pm on January 15, 2026. (ECF No. 1.)
Unbeknownst to any of Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s family members or her counsel, ICE
booked Ms. Valdes Acevado out of the Nassau County Jail at approximately 5:15 pm. (First
Johnson Decl. ¶ 5.) From that time until around 12:30 am to 1:05 am on January 16, 2026, ICE
contractors transported Ms. Valdes Acevado by motor vehicle from the Nassau County Jail to the
MVPC in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania. (Id. at ¶¶ 5–7.) The parties do not dispute that ICE
transported Ms. Valdes Acevedo from Nassau County through the District of New Jersey and the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, before arriving at the MVPC, which is located in the Western
District of Pennsylvania. Johnson attests that he “[was] informed” by unidentified sources that at
approximately 10:08 pm, the ICE contractors transporting Ms. Valdes Acevedo stopped for gas
somewhere in the vicinity of Mifflinville, Pennsylvania. (Id. at ¶ 6.) He attached to his
declaration a gas receipt obtained by the ICE contractors. (ECF No. 13-2.)
While being transported between detention facilities, Ms. Valdes Acevedo did not know
where she was being taken but was under the impression that she was being taken to 26 Federal
Plaza. (Hr’g Tr. 52:21–22.) It is undisputed, however, that she was not taken to that location. (Id.
52:16–53:3.) Moreover, at no point during this trip did ICE permit Ms. Valdes Acevedo to call
her family or counsel to inform them of her whereabouts. (Id. 52:13–17.) Indeed, it is against
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
ICE policy to do so. (See Jan. 22 Letter at 2.) After the ICE transportation contractors crossed
Manhattan, Ms. Valdez Acevedo had no idea where she was until she arrived at the MVPC in
Pennsylvania. (Hr’g Tr. 52:16–53:3.)
Following her arrival at the MVPC, at around 1:18 am on January 16, 2026, Ms. Valdes
Acevedo was permitted to call her family and inform them of her location, providing the first
notice that she had been transferred out of Nassau County Jail and was located in Pennsylvania.
(Id. at 52:6–12; id. at 37:25–38:6.) The first time that any family member was able to secure any
information from ICE about Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s whereabouts was at around 6:00 am on Jan.
16, 2026, when Mr. Rios Valdes refreshed the ICE Online Detainee Locator System and learned
that his mother was detained at the MVPC. (Hr’g Tr. 35:19–21.) Ms. Valdes Acevedo remains
detained in that facility. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 8.)
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that the Middle District of Pennsylvania is the only district court that
may resolve the Petition because at the time it was filed—11:03 pm on January 15, 2026—Ms.
Valdes Acevedo was located somewhere in that district while en route to the MVPC in the
Western District of Pennsylvania. (Motion at 1.) Petitioner opposes transfer, arguing that the fact
that Ms. Valdes Acevedo may have been driven through Pennsylvania does not determine venue
for a variety of reasons, including that Respondents misread the Second Circuit’s decision in
Ozturk II. (ECF No. 14 at 1–2.) According to Petitioner, Respondents’ venue theory would
permit the government to “legally thwart habeas venue/jurisdiction indefinitely by continually
transporting a prisoner without ever stopping long enough at one location . . .” (Id. at 2.) Finally,
Petitioner argues that Respondents obfuscated Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s true location of detention,
thereby warranting an exception to the district-of-confinement rule, and that traditional venue
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 12 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
considerations weigh in favor of hearing the Petition in the Eastern District of New York in light
of alleged due process violations in this District, Petitioner’s prior conviction in this District, and
her parole into the United States through this District in 2009. (Id. at 2–3.)
Respondents’ venue theory is legally and factually unsupported for the reasons explained
below. The unusual facts before the Court warrant application of the unknown-custodian
exception to the district-of-confinement rule. As a result, the last known district in which Ms.
Valdes Acevedo was detained prior to the filing of the Petition—the Eastern District of New
York—is the sole judicial district that can hear the Petition.
I. 	Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction – Legal Standards
Claims by persons in ICE detention that “necessarily imply the invalidity of their
confinement and removal” fall “within the ‘core’ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in
habeas.” Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025). Such is the case here, where the Petition
seeks Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s immediate release. (ECF No. 1 at 5.)3
Under the habeas statute, district courts may only grant habeas relief “within their
respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). There are “two traditional requirements for a
federal court to entertain a habeas petition” that challenges a person’s physical confinement: (1)
the petition must “be filed in the district of confinement,” and (2) it must “name the petitioner’s
3 Although the Petition also seeks a writ of mandamus against Respondents “so that a
determination on [petitioner’s] bond and custody application can be made” (Pet. at 15), that relief
too relates to core habeas relief. See Darboe v. Ahrendt, 442 F. Supp. 3d 592, 594 (S.D.N.Y.
2020) (holding that a habeas petition seeking a bond hearing “goes directly to [petitioner’s]
continued detention” and therefore it “raises a ‘core’ habeas challenge”); Singh v. Decker, No.
20-cv-9089, 2021 WL 23328, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2021) (collecting cases).
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
immediate custodian.” Ozturk II, 136 F.4th at 390 (citing Rumsfeld v Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 438
(2004)).
Regarding this first requirement, “[t]he plain language of the habeas statute . . . confirms
the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement,
jurisdiction lies only in one district: the district of confinement.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 443. The
district of confinement is the district where a habeas petitioner is physically confined “[a]t the
time the petition was filed.” Ozturk II, 136 F.4th at 391.
With respect to the second requirement—the immediate-custodian rule—a petition must
generally name “some person who has the immediate custody of the party detained” rather than a
remote supervisory official because, “[b]y definition, the immediate custodian and the [detained
person] reside in the same district . . . .” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 435, 444 (emphasis in original).
However, there are exceptions to these two general requirements. In Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
the Supreme Court recognized that when a detained person “is held in an undisclosed location by
an unknown custodian, it is impossible to apply the immediate custodian and district of
confinement rules.” 542 U.S. at 450 n.18 (citing Demjanjuk v. Meese, 784 F.2d 1114, 1116 (D.C.
Cir. 1986) (Bork, J., in chambers) (emphasis added)).4 Although courts refer to this as the
“unknown-custodian exception,” it impacts the application of both the district-of-confinement
and immediate-custodian rules. See Ozturk II, 136 F.4th at 392 (recognizing the unknown-
custodian exception where the government argued that petitioner’s failure to name her immediate
custodian was fatal to the petition); Suri v. Trump, No. 25-1560, 2025 WL 1806692, at *4 (4th
4 For example, in Demjanjuk, the D.C. Circuit recognized that when a detainee is held in a secret
location, their attorneys “cannot be expected to file in the jurisdiction where [the detainee is]
held,” because it is “impracticable to require the attorneys to file in every jurisdiction.” 784 F.2d
at 1116.
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
Cir. July 1, 2025) (finding that the unknown-custodian exception “encompasses” an exception to
both the district-of-confinement and immediate-custodian rules); Tacuri ex rel. Guanoluisa v.
Francis, No. 25-cv-07012, 2025 WL 3459377, *3–4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2025) (applying the
unknown-custodian exception in the district-of-confinement analysis); Khalil v. Joyce, 777 F.
Supp. 3d 369, at *403–410 (D.N.J.), motion to certify appeal granted, 777 F. Supp. 3d 411
(D.N.J. 2025) (applying the unknown-custodian exception to the immediate custodian analysis).
The Fourth Circuit explained why the unknown-custodian exception is relevant not only
to the assessment of the proper respondent to a habeas petition (the immediate-custodian rule),
but also to the determination of venue (the district-of-confinement rule):
The unknown-custodian exception is critical because a detainee must always have an
available forum for a habeas petition, even if the government doesn’t disclose their
location. As Blackstone put it, ‘the king is at all times [e]ntitled to have an account, why
the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted.’
Suri, 2025 WL 1806692 at *5 (citing 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *131). Thus, the
unknown-custodian exception to the general rule that a habeas petition must be filed in the
district of confinement and name the petitioner’s immediate custodian advances the core habeas
principle that “there is no gap in the fabric of habeas—no place, no moment, where a person held
in custody in the United States cannot call on a court to hear his case and decide it.” Id.;
Guanoluisa, 2025 WL 3459377, at *3. And “absent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus
remains available to every individual detained within the United States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542
U.S. 507, 525 (2004).
Courts have grappled with the complexity of applying the district-of-confinement and
immediate-custodian rules to determine the proper venue for a habeas petition when the
Government has transferred a detainee to another district. Questions concerning the proper venue
and respondent are straightforward when the transfer occurs after the filing of a petition. The
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
Supreme Court has made clear that “when the Government moves a habeas petitioner after [the
petitioner] properly files a petition naming her immediate custodian, the District Court [where
the petition was filed] retains jurisdiction and may direct the writ to any respondent within its
jurisdiction who has legal authority to effectuate the [petitioner’s] release.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at
441. However, when the government moves a habeas petitioner before the petition is filed, the
analysis can become more complex.
For example, in Ozturk v. Trump (“Ozturk I”), 777 F. Supp. 3d 26 (D. Mass. 2025), a
district court in Massachusetts determined that Vermont was the district of confinement where, at
the time a habeas petition was filed, ICE was moving the petitioner through Vermont to a
detention facility in that state, where she was ultimately detained overnight before being flown to
Louisiana. Id. at 43. After making that determination, the court ordered the government to
transfer the petitioner from Louisiana back to Vermont to aid in resolving the petition. Id. In
ruling on an application for an emergency stay of the transfer order pending appeal, the Second
Circuit concluded that the government failed to show a likelihood of success in its argument that
Louisiana was the proper venue. Ozturk II, 136 F.4th at 390–394. In Khalil v. Joyce (“Joyce”),
771 F. Supp. 3d 268, 276, 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2025), the district court found that New Jersey was the
district of confinement where the petitioner was removed from the Southern District of New
York and booked into a New Jersey detention facility before his counsel filed a habeas petition in
the Southern District of New York.
Pertinent to the facts before this Court is the court’s analysis in Guanoluisa, 2025 WL
3459377, at *3. There the district court applied the unknown-custodian exception to the district-
of-confinement and immediate-custodian rules where “neither Petitioner’s next friend nor
anyone else seeking to act on Petitioner’s behalf could have known . . . at the time of filing” the
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

17
habeas petition in the Southern District of New York that the petitioner had been removed from
New York, driven to New Jersey, and then flown to Texas. Id. at *4. The information about
where ICE officials were planning to transport the petitioner was not made available through the
ICE Online Detainee Locator System or otherwise. Id. Because such information was not
available to individuals “exercising reasonably diligent effort at the time that Petitioner’s next
friend filed the Petition,” the unknown-custodian exception applied. Id. (citing Suri v. Trump,
785 F. Supp. 3d 128, 143–44 (E. D. Va. 2025)). Moreover, “because Petitioner was neither here,
nor there, but in the air when his habeas claim was filed . . . he was not physically detained in
any judicial district at that time,” and therefore “no district satisfie[d] the district of confinement
rule.” Guanoluisa, 2025 WL 3459377, at *4 (emphasis added).
II. 	Analysis
Here, as in every habeas case, venue is only proper in a single district: the district of
confinement. Ozturk II, 136 F. 4th at 391; Padilla, 542 U.S. at 443. By all accounts, Ms. Valdes
Acevedo was detained in the Nassau County Jail in the Eastern District of New York on January
15, 2026. After an ICE officer suggested that she could be moved to 26 Federal Plaza (in the
Southern District of New York), her family repeatedly searched for information about when or
where she might be moved through all available avenues—by calling the phone number provided
to them and conducting searches of the ICE Online Detainee Locator System “countless” times.
(Hr’g Tr. 34:14–23; id. at 22:13–15.) Her family retained counsel that day and informed him of
their extensive efforts. Counsel conducted an additional search of the ICE Online Detainee
Locator System as late as around 9:00 pm, just hours prior to filing the Petition, which yielded
no information about Ms. Valdes Acevedo whatsoever. (Id. 9:15–10:17.) At no point on January
15, 2025, did ICE provide any information to the public or Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s counsel or
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

18
family about where she was located. At 5:15 pm that day, ICE officials removed Ms. Valdez
Acevedo from the Eastern District of New York without informing her family or counsel,
providing any information about her whereabouts on the ICE Online Detainee Locator System,
or allowing Ms. Valdes Acevedo to call her family to tell them that she was being moved. (First
Johnson Decl. ¶ 5; Hr’g. Tr. 26:1–5; id. at 24:4–13; id. at 51:23–52:17.)
Accordingly, at the time the Petition was filed, no reasonably diligent attorney (or family
member) could have known that Ms. Valdes Acevedo was being driven somewhere in
Pennsylvania, much less that she was specifically in the Middle District of Pennsylvania at the
moment the Petition was filed. See Suri, 785 F. Supp. 3d at 143–44. Moreover, Respondents fail
to support their contention that Ms. Valdez Acevedo was detained in ICE custody specifically in
the Middle District of Pennsylvania at the precise moment the Petition was filed—11:03 pm—
with any admissible evidence, such as a declaration or testimony by a witness with personal
knowledge. Both her location and custodian were unknown at the moment the Petition was filed,
warranting application of the unknown-custodian exception recognized by Padilla, 542 U.S. at
450 n.18, and applied by the Second Circuit in the immigration detention context, Ozturk II, 136
F.4th at 392–93. Under this rule, the district of confinement and the only district that can resolve
the Petition is the last known place of detention: the Eastern District of New York. See
Guanoluisa, 2025 WL 3459377, at *4 (applying unknown-custodian exception to the district-of-
confinement rule).
Respondents rely on Ozturk II, Joyce, and a district court decision from Colorado to
argue for venue in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. None of their arguments are persuasive.
First, neither the Second Circuit in Ozturk II nor the district court in Joyce confronted a
situation where (1) there are no facts in the record as to where the petitioner actually was located
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

19
at the time the petition was filed, (2) the government seeks to transfer venue to a district through
which the petitioner was transported at some point but not detained overnight, and (3) where
there was no way for counsel to know the petitioner’s location or immediate custodian at the
time the petition was filed. The Second Circuit in Ozturk II observed that the petitioner was
transited through Vermont en route to Louisiana. 136 F.4th at 389. However, in Ozturk I, the
Massachusetts district court concluded that Vermont was the district of confinement based on,
among other things, the fact that the petitioner was in transit to a detention facility in Vermont
when the petition was filed and was ultimately detained overnight in that district. 777 F. Supp.
3d at 43.
Second, contrary to Respondents’ contentions, the Second Circuit’s decision in Ozturk II
does not resolve questions about the application of the district-of-confinement rule and the
unknown-custodian exception on the facts before this Court. There, the Second Circuit declined
to impose an emergency stay of the carefully reasoned order of a district court in Vermont,
which required the government to transfer a habeas petitioner from Louisiana back to Vermont.
See Ozturk II, 136 F.4th at 387–89. Its analysis did not green light a venue rule by which a
district through which the government may be transporting a petitioner at the moment a habeas
petition is filed must be the district of confinement. As Judge Sanket Bulsara of this District
recently noted: “Nothing about the [Second Circuit’s] blessing the transfer created a rule that
venue is lost at the exact moment of a district border crossing.” Flores-Linares, v. Bondi, No. 26-
cv-00298, 2026 WL 179208, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2026).
Third, to be clear, Respondents had custody of Ms. Valdes Acevedo during the entire
time of her transport from the Nassau County Jail to the MVPC, yet they simultaneously fail to
provide a declaration or testimony by an individual with personal knowledge of her location at
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 19 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

20
the time the Petition was filed while also insisting that her physical location at the precise minute
of that filing determines venue. (Jan. 21 Letter at 1 (“[I]n terms of determining which district in
Pennsylvania would have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s habeas petition, the Court must look to
Petitioner’s physical location at the time the petition was filed.”).) Respondents’ declarant
estimates that Ms. Valdes Acevedo arrived at the MVPC (located in the Western District of
Pennsylvania) some time around 12:30 am to 1:05 am on January 16, 2026. (First Johnson Decl.
¶ 7.) But that does not tell us where Ms. Valdes Acevedo was at 11:03 pm on January 15, 2026,
when the Petition was filed. Respondents point to a gas station receipt from 55 minutes before
the filing of the Petition to argue that Ms. Valdes Acevedo must have been in the Middle District
of Pennsylvania at 11:03 pm. (Motion at 1 (citing ECF No. 13-2).) When asked how
Respondents could be sure that Ms. Valdes Acevedo was located in that specific district—rather
than the Western District of Pennsylvania—at that precise time, Respondents asked the Court to
conduct a Google Maps search to estimate the driving time from the gas station location to the
MVPC, emphasizing that the MVPC is on the eastern border of the Western District of
Pennsylvania. (Hr’g Tr. 48:1–17; see also Jan. 21 Letter at 1 (noting that the MVPC is “located
on the eastern edge of the Western District of Pennsylvania”).) However, Respondents’ failure to
pinpoint exactly where Ms. Valdez Acevedo was located at that time her Petition was filed
undermines their insistence that the district of confinement for a detainee in transit must be what
is at best characterized as a district through which the petitioner may have been transported at the
minute the petition is filed. Indeed, Respondents concede that ICE transported Ms. Valdes
Acevedo through numerous jurisdictions on January 15, 2026, potentially including the Southern
District of New York, the District of New Jersey, and the Middle District of Pennsylvania, before
booking her into a detention facility in the Western District of Pennsylvania. (See Motion at 3.)
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 20 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

21
Fourth, due to security protocols, neither the fact of transfer nor the route is disclosed to
the public, making it impossible for a petitioner’s counsel and family to predict where the
petitioner may be located such that they can file a habeas petition in the correct venue in the
event that the detained person is in transit at the time a habeas petition is filed. (See Jan. 22
Letter at 2.) The facts here are thus comparable to those in Guanaluisa, where the court applied
the unknown-custodian exception to determine the district of confinement. 2025 WL 3459377, at
*4. When questioned about Guanaluisa, Respondents did not take the position that the case was
wrongly decided. (Hr’g Tr. 48:18–49:7.) Rather, according to Respondents, the unknown-
custodian exception would apply when a petition is filed while a detainee is being flown on a
plane from one jurisdiction to another, but not when a detainee is being driven in a motor vehicle
from one jurisdiction to another because precise location can be pinpointed when driving, but not
when flying. (Id.) As a factual matter, that is simply incorrect. GPS and other technology permits
pinpointing where the plane flying Guanoluisa was located in the air above a judicial district at
the time her petition was filed, just as GPS and other technology permits pinpointing where the
motor vehicle transporting Ms. Valdes Acevedo was located at the time her Petition was filed.
Although such precise determinations are possible, the government apparently does not log such
information on a minute-to-minute basis when transporting ICE detainees, whether by plane or
motor vehicle—nor does this Court expect them to do so. Yet, Respondents seek a rule where
such precision is required to identify the sole district of confinement with jurisdiction to hear a
habeas petition in the case of a detained person in transit when the petition is filed. Analogous to
the situation in Guanoluisa, here, Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s family did not and could not know that
she was being removed from New York and taken to Pennsylvania and thus could not have filed
the Petition in any district in that state on her behalf. See Guanoluisa, 2025 WL 3459377, at *5
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 21 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

22
(noting similar facts with respect to the Western District of Texas). As in Guanoluisa, it is
impossible here to identify the precise district in which Ms. Valdes Acevedo was detained at the
time the Petition was filed. Therefore, “habeas venue properly lies in the last-known location of
detention” in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Padilla that there is only one appropriate
district in which a habeas petition could be brought. 542 U.S. at 443; see also Guanoluisa, 2025
WL 3459377, at *4.
Fifth, Respondents fail to demonstrate how their theory of venue comports with the
immediate-custodian rule. According to Respondents, while Ms. Valdes Acevedo was being
transported from the Eastern District of New York to the Western District of Pennsylvania, her
immediate custodian was the Acting Field Office Director for ICE ERO for whatever location
she was in, frequently changing as she moved from Nassau County, through the Southern
District of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and
ultimately to the Western District of Pennsylvania. (Hr’g Tr. 59:21–60:7.) This argument
crumbles upon deep inquiry. Respondents fail to show that any of these supervisory ICE officials
assumed custody over Ms. Valdes Acevedo, much less that they even knew that she was passing
through their area of responsibility such that they served as her immediate custodian on January
15, 2026. Yet, the proper respondent to a habeas petition is “the person with the ability to
produce the prisoner’s body before the habeas court.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 434–35 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the Massachusetts district court in Ozturk I rejected this exact
immediate-custodian theory. It found that there is no “legitimate judicial imprimatur to [such a]
freewheeling definition of a custodian” in the face of the petitioner’s assertion that the ICE New
England Field Office Director based in Massachusetts was Ozturk’s immediate custodian while
ICE was transporting her through Vermont. Ozturk I, 777 F. Supp. 3d at 39 n.2. Similarly here,
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 22 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

23
Respondents fail to show why the Acting Field Office Director for ICE ERO located in
Philadelphia—in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania—was Ms. Valdez Acevedo’s immediate
custodian as she was driven across the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Sixth, Respondents rely on an out-of-Circuit case to argue that venue lies in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania on the basis that “the ‘district of confinement’ rule takes precedence
over the ‘immediate custodian’ rule because issues related to the immediate custodian are
practically resolved by the court[’s] jurisdiction over supervising officials.” (Jan. 21 Letter at 2
(quoting Dvortsin v. Noem, No. 25-cv-01741, 2025 WL 1751968 (D. Colo. June 12, 2025).)
There is no Second Circuit authority establishing such a rule. Moreover, as the facts of this case
show, application of the district-of-confinement rule without the unknown-custodian exception
does not resolve the question of who was Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s immediate custodian during her
transport, because her precise location at the time the Petition was filed is unknown and
Respondents’ assertion that the Acting Field Office Director for ICE ERO for Philadelphia was
her immediate custodian is unsupported both legally and factually.
Seventh, here, where there is essentially an “unknown” district of confinement,
Respondents’ venue theory would permit forum shopping by the government, rather than limit
forum shopping by either party. Respondents may waive a venue objection because the district-
of-confinement rule is not jurisdictional in the sense of a limitation on subject-matter
jurisdiction. Skaftouros v. United States, 667 F.3d 144, 146 n.1 (2d Cir. 2011). Rather, it is akin
to venue. See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 451 (Kennedy, J., concurring); Joyce, 771 F. Supp. 3d at 287.
Respondents have identified no prejudice in litigating the Petition here. However, rather than
waive any objection to the filing of the Petition in the Eastern District of New York,
Respondents seek to transfer this matter to the Middle District of Pennsylvania based on a
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 23 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

24
declaration consisting of hearsay statements based on information gleaned from unidentified
sources and a gas station receipt from 55 minutes before the filing of the Petition—even though
there is no evidence of Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s location at the time the Petition was filed, she was
never held overnight in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, no warden there assumed custody
over her, and there was no reasonable basis for her counsel to have known that ICE may have
been driving her through that district when the Petition was filed. Respondents request to transfer
venue on these facts suggest forum shopping by Respondents. By contrast, there is no evidence
that Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s counsel made any effort to forum shop by filing the Petition in this
District based on all evidence in the record, including that Ms. Valdez Acevedo was detained in
Nassau County even as late as around 4:00 pm on January 15, 2026 and the extensive searches
conducted by her family and counsel to determine when and where she could be transferred.
Accordingly, on this record, where neither counsel nor family could have discovered Ms.
Valdez Acevedo’s location with reasonable diligence due to the government’s decision to move
her, Ms. Valdez Acevedo’s location and custodian at the time the Petition was filed were both
unknown. The district of confinement is therefore the last known place of detention: the Eastern
District of New York. This conclusion is squarely rooted in the application of the unknown-
custodian exception recognized by Padilla, 542 U.S. at 450 n.18, and applied by the Second
Circuit in Ozturk II, 136 F.4th at 392–93. Respondents’ request to transfer venue to the Middle
District of Pennsylvania is unsupported by the facts and would compel the conclusion that an
ICE supervisory official in Philadelphia served as Ms. Valdez Acevedo’s immediate custodian
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 24 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

25
when she was being driven through that district.5 Such a theory of venue is legally untenable for
all of the reasons set forth above.6
Moreover, the conclusion that the last known district of detention is the district of
confinement based on the specific facts before this Court also respects traditional venue
concerns. Cf. Suri, 785 F. Supp. 3d at 149 (holding that resorting to traditional venue
considerations is appropriate when applying the default rules of habeas jurisdiction become
untenable); Guanoluisa, 2025 WL 3459377, at *5 (taking into account traditional venue
considerations in determining the district of confinement). The Eastern District of New York—
where Ms. Valdes Acevedo was paroled into the United States, has a prior criminal case, resides
5 In their post-hearing supplemental letter, Respondents rely on a district court case from
Maryland to argue that the unknown-custodian exception does not apply here because
Respondents are not forum shopping or seeking to imminently remove Ms. Valdes Acevedo.
(Jan. 22 Letter at 2–3 (citing Mbabid v. Baker, No. 25-cv-3505, 2025 WL 3211024 (D. Md. Nov.
18, 2025).) As noted above, however, the record suggests that Respondents are forum shopping.
The record before the Court, moreover, warrants application of the unknown-custodian exception
to the district-of-confinement rule because Ms. Valdez Acevedo was “held in an undisclosed
location by an unknown custodian,” which rendered it “impossible to apply the immediate
custodian and district of confinement rules.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 450 n.18.
6 Moreover, Respondents’ proposed rule promises significant delays and inefficiencies because it
is impossible for counsel or family to discern the proper venue for a habeas petition concerning a
detained person whom the government decides to move from one location to another—and
potentially again and again—until an unspecified amount of time has passed before the
government provides information about the petitioner’s location. Then, if transfer is required
under Respondents’ theory, petitioners must wait for one federal district court to another court—
a process that adds additional delay despite the best intentions of the transferring court.
Such inefficiencies are contrary to the purpose of habeas, which compels courts to “afford a swift
and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restrain upon personal liberty.” Price v. Johnston,
334 U.S. 266, 283 (1948) (emphasis added). These delays are also unwarranted on the facts
presented here, where Ms. Valdes Acevedo was held in an undisclosed location by an unknown
custodian at the time the Petition was filed, thereby meriting application of the unknown-
custodian exception to the district-of-confinement rule.
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 25 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

26
with her children and extended family, was being interviewed for an application for status as a
lawful permanent resident, was arrested by ICE on January 15, 2026, and was detained until later
that same day—has a strong interest in hearing the habeas petition. Moreover, as noted,
Respondents have pointed to no prejudice to litigating the matter here.
For all of these reasons, at the time the Petition was filed, the Eastern District of New
York was “the one and only district” in which Ms. Valdes Acevedo could have filed her petition
when she did. Joyce, 771 F. Supp. 3d at 290; Guanoluisa, 2025 WL 3459377, at *5.
Finally, Respondents have waived any argument as to whether the Petition is defective in
that it names agencies—Nassau County Correctional Center, DHS, and DOJ—rather than a
specific custodian or supervisory government officials. Respondents’ Motion fails to make any
argument regarding the proper respondent in this action and instead focuses solely on the
question of venue in light of the district-of-confinement rule. (See generally Motion.)
Respondents only addressed the issue of the proper respondent in response to the Court’s January
20, 2026 Order, which required “a filing identifying who would be the proper respondent to the
petition under the immediate-custodian rule as of January 15, 2026 at 11:08 PM.” (Elec. Order,
Jan. 20, 2026.) In response to the Court’s questions at the January 21, 2026 hearing, Respondents
made clear that they are not “challenging that the Petition names agencies rather than
individuals.” (Hr’g Tr. 59:7–12.) Thus, Respondents have waived any objection based on the
Petition’s failure to name a specific custodian or supervisory government official. See
Skaftouros, 667 F.3d at 146 n.1; Gooden v. Gonzales, 162 F. App’x 28, 29 (2d Cir. 2005).
III. 	Response to the Petition
This Court’s January 16, 2026 Order to Show Cause required Respondents to show cause
why the Petition should not be granted by January 19, 2026, and scheduled a hearing on the
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 26 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

27
Order to Show Cause for January 21, 2026. (Elec. Order, Jan. 16, 2026.) In lieu of providing a
substantive response to the Petition, on January 18, 2026, Respondents filed the Motion to
Transfer and requested the following alternative relief in the event transfer was denied: (1) an
extension of time until January 23, 2026 to respond to the Order to Show Cause, (2) sufficient
time thereafter for Petitioner to reply, and (3) an adjournment of the January 21, 2026 hearing.
(Motion at 4.) Respondents contend that “[d]ue to the age of [Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s] file, it is
kept in paper form and will require some time for ICE to obtain” and provide copies. (Id. at 3.)
Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s counsel indicated that he could not consent to these extension requests
until he had time to meet with this client. (Id. at 3–4.)
Because the Motion to Transfer is denied, this Court now considers Respondents’
extension and adjournment requests.
First, the Court already adjourned the January 21, 2026 show cause hearing and
converted that proceeding to a hearing and argument on the Motion to Transfer. (Elec. Order,
Jan. 20, 2026.) Accordingly, one form of requested relief has already been granted.
Second, January 23, 2026—the date on which Respondents sought to file their
substantive response to the Order to Show Cause—has passed. It has been nine days since the
Petition was filed, and Respondents have had ample time to gather all relevant materials as the
Court has considered the question of venue. Accordingly, the request for an extension of time is
granted. By January 24, 2026 at 5:00 pm, Respondents must show cause why the Petition
should not be granted, including by identifying the statutory basis for detaining Ms. Valdes
Acevedo, whether 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1), 1225(b)(2), 1226(c), and/or some other provision of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, and all documents material to their asserted statutory basis
for the detention.
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 27 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>

28
Third, the request for an extension of time for Petitioner’s reply is granted due to the
grant of Respondents’ requested extension. Petitioner must submit any reply by January 26,
2026.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this Court has jurisdiction to hear Ms. Valdes Acevedo’s
Petition, and Respondents’ Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 13) is denied.
By January 24, 2026 at 5:00 pm, Respondents must file a response to the Order to Show
Cause that includes, but is not limited to, information identifying the precise statutory basis for
detaining the petitioner and all documents material to their asserted statutory basis for the
detention.
Ms. Valdez Acevedo must submit any reply by January 26, 2026. The Court will hold a
hearing on the Petition on January 28, 2026 at 10:30 am.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
January 24, 2026
/s/ Nusrat J. Choudhury
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00250-NJC Document 20 Filed 01/24/26 Page 28 of 28 PageID #:
<pageID>