Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

<!-- PageHeader="Case 1:26-cv-01652-EAW Document 5 Filed 08/14/26 Page 1 of 3" -->

# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JORGE EDUARDO ARELLANO
TENEMAZA,

Petitioner,

V.

DECISION AND ORDER

1:26-CV-01652-EAW

MICHAEL BALL, Acting Deputy Field
Office Director, Buffalo Field Immigration
Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs
Enforcement, et al., 1

Respondents.

Petitioner Jorge Eduardo Arellano Tenemaza ("Petitioner") is a civil immigration
detainee alleging that he is being detained in United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE") custody pending removal proceedings in violation of the United
States Constitution. (Dkt. 1). He seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Id.). Petitioner is
being held at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York. (Id. at | 13).

The Second Circuit issued a decision in da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir.
2026), holding that noncitizens who are present in the United States after entering without

1
Respondent Michael Ball is the Acting Deputy Field Office Director of the Buffalo
Field Office of Immigration & Customs Enforcement. The Clerk of Court is directed to
update the docket to reflect his position. In addition, Philip Rhoney is the Acting Field
Office Director of the Buffalo Field Office of the United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and thus is substituted as Respondent in place of Tammy Marich pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket
to reflect this substitution.

<!-- PageFooter="AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO" -->

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="Case 1:26-cv-01652-EAW Document 5 Filed 08/14/26 Page 2 of 3" -->

inspection and admission and who were not apprehended at or near the border at the time
of entry are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) but instead are
subject to detention under section 1226(a). In addition, this Court issued Decisions and
Orders in Ivonin v. Rhoney, et al., No. 6:25-CV-06673 EAW, 2026 WL 199283 (W.D.N.Y.
Jan. 26, 2026) and Ab-Rahim v. Marich, No. 6:26-CV-06005-EAW, 2026 WL 279113, at
*1 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2026), holding that the detention of noncitizens following expiration
of parole is also governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and not § 1225(b)(2). Respondents
acknowledge that the 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. 4).

Accordingly, for the reasons articulated in the aforementioned decisions, 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 August 21. 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\.
After considering the balancing test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424
U.S. 319 (1976), the Court concludes that the government shall have the burden to
demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. See Nany v.
Blanche et al., No. 1:26-CV-01187-EAW, 2026 WL 1842635, at *4-5 (W.D.N.Y. June 26,
2026) (Court's analysis of Mathews factors under similar circumstances to this case, which

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="Case 1:26-cv-01652-EAW Document 5 Filed 08/14/26 Page 3 of 3" -->

applies equally here); Lieogo v. Freden, No. 6:25-CV-06615 EAW, 2025 WL 3290694, at
*4-5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) (same). 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.

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
August 25, 2026.

SO ORDERED.

Perte De
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Dated:

August 14, 2026

Rochester, New York