Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
FERNANDO ADALBERTO GALEAS
MIRANDA,
Petitioner,
- against -
RAUL MALDONADO, JR., et al.,
Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-6882 (PKC)
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:
On December 15, 2025, Petitioner Fernando Adalberto Galeas Miranda filed an Emergency
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. 1), and an Emergency
Application for an Order to Show Cause, (Dkt. 2). At the time, Petitioner had been detained at the
Metropolitan Detention Center for over five months. (Pet., Dkt. 1, ¶ 1.) Petitioner claimed, inter
alia, that “the mandatory detention” provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) did not apply to him
because he had already arrived in the United States and had been previously paroled at the time he
was detained. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 65, 91); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (detailing procedures for “expedited
removal of inadmissible arriving aliens”). Rather, Petitioner argued that, as a noncitizen who was
“detained in the interior and not ‘seeking admission’ at the time ICE arrested him at immigration
court,” (Pet., Dkt. 1, ¶ 91), his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226, and that he was
unconstitutionally detained for a prolonged period absent a bond hearing or release, (id. ¶¶ 70,
91–97).
Case 1:25-cv-06882-PKC Document 17 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Later that day, December 15, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing
Respondents to state in writing “why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued and why
Petitioner should not be immediately released.” (Dkt. 5.) The Court scheduled a hearing on the
petition for December 23, 2025. (12/18/2025 Dkt. Order.)
On December 19, 2025, the Court held oral argument on a petition for habeas corpus in a
different immigration detention case, R.A.R.R. v. Almodovar et al., No. 25-CV-6597 (PKC)
(E.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 26, 2025). At that proceeding, the Court granted the petition for writ of
habeas corpus from the bench and ordered the petitioner’s immediate release. See Oral Ruling and
Docket Order, R.A.R.R., No. 25-CV-6598 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2025). The Court stated its
reasons for granting the petition on the record and explained that a more detailed Memorandum &
Order would follow. Id. Among other things, the Court held that: (1) 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), governed that petitioner’s detention because that petitioner had already
arrived at the border and was released from custody; and (2) that petitioner’s detention violated
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id.
As Respondents acknowledge, the Court’s oral ruling in R.A.R.R. addressed the principal
legal questions presented in this action. (Resp’ts’ Opp’n to Pet., Dkt. 10, at 3–4.) Both parties
agree that “the decision [in R.A.R.R.] would control the result in this case if the Court adheres to
that ruling.” (Id. at 4; see also id. at 4–5 (stating that “to conserve judicial resources and to expedite
the Court’s consideration of this case,” Respondents would rely upon its arguments in R.A.R.R.);
Pet’r’s Reply, Dkt. 11, at 1–2 (“R.A.R.R. controls the result in the instant case.”).) Therefore, the
Court deemed further briefing or oral argument in the instant matter unnecessary. (See 12/22/2025
Dkt. Order (canceling hearing).)
Case 1:25-cv-06882-PKC Document 17 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The Court adheres to its reasoning in R.A.R.R., as well as the reasoning of the vast majority
of other district courts to consider similar cases. See, e.g., Barco Mercado v. Francis,
--- F. Supp. 3d. ----, No. 25-CV-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025)
(“By a recent count, the central issue in this case—the administration’s new position that all
noncitizens who came into the United States illegally, but since have been living in the United
States, must be detained until their removal proceedings are completed—has been challenged in
at least 362 cases in federal district courts. The challengers have prevailed, either on a preliminary
or final basis, in 350 of those cases decided by over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty
different courts spread across the United States.”); id. at *13–14 (collecting cases); Yao v.
Almodovar, --- F. Supp. 3d. ----, No. 25-CV-9982 (PAE), 2025 WL 3653433, at *11 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 17, 2025) (noting that its holding, that “ICE’s discretion-free detention of
[petitioner] . . . violated due process,” was “[c]onsistent with the vast majority of other courts to
consider this question”).
The Court holds that Petitioner was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and that his
detention without any individualized custody determination violated his right to due process under
the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (Dkt. 1), is GRANTED.1
1 Petitioner has already been released pursuant to the Court’s December 22, 2025 Docket
Order, which stated:
Respondents are directed to release Petitioner from custody immediately and no
later than within 24 hours of this Order. Respondents are further directed to return
to Petitioner any and all funds or property seized from Petitioner at the time of his
arrest. Respondents are directed to certify compliance with the Court’s Order by
filing a letter on the docket no later than 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, December 23, 2025.
The Court further orders that Petitioner must not be re-detained by Respondents
without notice and an opportunity to be heard at a pre-deprivation bond hearing
before a neutral decisionmaker, at which Respondents will have the burden of
showing that Petitioner’s re-detention is authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The
Case 1:25-cv-06882-PKC Document 17 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment consistent with this
Memorandum & Order and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: January 5, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
deadline for Petitioner to apply for an award of reasonable fees and costs pursuant
to the Equal Access to Justice Act is January 26, 2026.
(12/22/2025 Dkt. Order.) On December 23, 2025, Respondents filed a letter confirming
that Petitioner was released from custody on December 22, 2025, at approximately
3:06 p.m. (Resp’ts’ Certification of Compliance Letter, Dkt. 14.) On December 29, 2025,
Respondents filed another letter to confirm that they had returned to Plaintiff all of his
property that was seized at the time of his arrest, including his identification documents
and employment authorization card. (Resp’ts’ Certification of Compliance Letter,
Dkt. 16.)
Case 1:25-cv-06882-PKC Document 17 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>