Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VARLAM MUMLADZE,
Petitioner,
– against –
RAUL MALDONADO, JR., in his official
capacity as Warden of Metropolitan
Detention Center, Brooklyn,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-cv-06358 (NCM)
NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge:
On September 8, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents
arrested and detained petitioner Varlam Mumladze when he appeared for an immigration
check-in appointment. Resp. 4, ECF No. 6. 1 Petitioner is currently being detained by
respondent at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York. Pet. 1,
ECF No. 1; Resp. 4. Petitioner now petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pet. 1. For the reasons discussed below, the petition is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is allegedly a Georgian national. Resp. 1. According to the government,
he entered the United States without inspection at or near San Luis, Arizona, on July 1,
2022. Resp. 1. He was apprehended there by Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”). Resp. 1.
The next day, CBP issued him a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) charging him with being
inadmissible because he had entered without inspection. Resp. 2. The day after that, he
1 	Throughout this Order, page numbers for docket filings refer to the page numbers
assigned in ECF filing headers.
Case 1:26-cv-06358-NCM Document 10 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
was released on his own recognizance under a Form I-220A, Order of Release on
Recognizance (“OREC”). Resp. 2. Following his release, petitioner traveled to New York.
Resp. 2. Removal proceedings were initiated against him there on August 12, 2022, and
remain ongoing. Resp. 2–3, 4.
On August 17, 2026, ICE mailed petitioner a “Call in Letter” instructing him to
report for a check-in with immigration authorities on September 8, 2026. Resp. 3.
Petitioner appeared for that check-in as instructed. Resp. 3. When he arrived, ICE officers
confirmed his identity and promptly arrested him. Resp. 3–4. 	He was processed at a
holding facility in Manhattan before being transferred to MDC, where he remains detained
today. Resp. 4.
Petitioner commenced the instant action on October 2, 2026, by filing a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus. See Pet. Three days later, the Court issued an order directing
respondent to submit a letter stating: (1) the statutory provision(s) under which
respondent asserts the authority to detain petitioner; and (2) whether the Second Circuit’s
decision in Barbosa da Cunha v. Freden, 175 F.4th 61 (2d Cir. 2026) controls, or whether
otherwise 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),
Terrero v. Tsoukaris, No. 26-cv-00869, 2026 WL 607917 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2026), Meza
v. Francis, No. 26-cv-02722, 2026 WL 1734903 (E.D.N.Y. June 16, 2026), R.J.S.R v.
Mullin, No. 26-cv-03611, 2026 WL 1803649 (E.D.N.Y. June 23, 2026), Menjivar v.
Genalo, No. 26-cv-2506, ECF No. 16 (E.D.N.Y. June 12, 2026), R.M.R. v. Genalo, No. 26-
cv-04358, 2026 WL 2211009 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2026), or any other decision of this Court.
Scheduling Order 2–3, ECF No. 3.
Case 1:26-cv-06358-NCM Document 10 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
On October 13, 2026, the government filed a response stating that petitioner is
subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). Resp. 4. The government further
argues that da Cunha “does not squarely govern” this case because it did not address
noncitizens who were released into the country after being apprehended shortly following
their entry without inspection. Resp. 4. Despite that contention, however, the government
acknowledges that this Court has previously held that under da Cunha, when a noncitizen
is released on parole, and that parole later lapses—circumstances which the government
concedes are not materially different than release on recognizance—the noncitizen cannot
be subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). Resp. 4–5 (citing V.A.S.R. v.
Genalo, 2026 WL 3025950 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2026) and R.M.R. v. Genalo, 2026 WL
2211009 (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 31, 2026)).
Petitioner has replied, urging the Court to follow V.A.S.R. and R.M.R., grant his
petition, and order his release. Reply 4, ECF No. 8.
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)). 2 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, 811 F. Supp. 3d 274, 290 (E.D.N.Y. 2025) (citing Velasco
Lopez v. Decker, 978 F.3d 842, 850 (2d Cir. 2020)).
2 	Throughout this Order, the Court omits all internal quotation marks, footnotes, and
citations, and adopts all alterations, unless otherwise indicated.
Case 1:26-cv-06358-NCM Document 10 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
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. See Pet. 7
(challenging his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), the lack of a bond hearing in his
case, and the proper allocation of the burden of proof regarding the permissibility of
detention in his case). The government concedes that this case is not materially
distinguishable from this Court’s decisions in V.A.S.R. and R.M.R. Resp. 5.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated by this Court in V.A.S.R. and R.M.R., which the
Court incorporates here by reference, the Court concludes that petitioner is being
unlawfully detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and in violation of his rights to due process
under the Fifth Amendment. 3 See V.A.S.R., 2026 WL 3025950, at *2–3; R.M.R., 2026 WL
2211009, at *2–5; see also Mora Alvarez, 2026 WL 2295454, at *2–3; Olivier v. Mullin,
2026 WL 2350274, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2026); Rivera Casallos v. Maldonado, 2026
WL 2267789, at *4–5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026); Robles Escalona v. Warden, MDC
Brooklyn, 2026 WL 2018505, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2026).
Moreover, as this Court discussed in R.M.R., respondent’s argument that da Cunha
is distinguishable, Resp. 4, ignores the reality that petitioner here is not “requesting lawful
entry into the United States—he is, in fact, already in the country, and has been for multiple
years[.]” R.M.R., 2026 WL 2211009, at *3. Like the noncitizen in da Cunha, and the
3 	For the avoidance of doubt, the Court does not address any legal or factual
argument that respondent does not raise here or did not raise in his briefing in V.A.S.R.
and R.M.R. 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-06358-NCM Document 10 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Court’s prior opinions in R.M.R., V.A.S.R., and others, petitioner here “is . . . no longer
seeking admission; he is here.” Robles Escalona, 2026 WL 2018505, at *3. Thus, Section
1225(b)(2)(A) cannot apply to him. da Cunha, 175 F.4th at 74.
“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 of the United States Constitution. The petition for a writ
of habeas corpus is therefore GRANTED.
Respondent is directed to release petitioner from custody within 24 hours of this
Order and file a letter on the docket no later than 12:00 p.m. on October 16, 2026,
certifying his 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 *8–9 (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 v. Genalo, No. 26-cv-00554, 2026 WL 328983, at
*2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2026). This Order includes “an injunction barring deprivation of
Case 1:26-cv-06358-NCM Document 10 Filed 10/15/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
[petitioner’s] rights without the requisite procedural protections.” Khabazha, 2025 WL
3281514, at *8; see also Ccorihuaman, 2026 WL 328983, at *2.
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: 	October 15, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-06358-NCM Document 10 Filed 10/15/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>