Valeriia Pak v. Angela Hoover, et al.

Pak v. Hoover, Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-00379 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2026) · United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · March 5, 2026 · No. Civil Action No. 3:26-CV-00379

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted Valeriia Pak’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging her immigration detention. The court held that Pak’s detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that detention without an opportunity for a bond determination violated procedural due process. The court ordered her release, required the return of her belongings and identification documents, and permanently enjoined re-detention under § 1225(b).

Holdings

  1. Under the immediate-custodian rule, the warden of the facility where Pak was detained, Angela Hoover, was the proper respondent; Michael T. Rose was dismissed as a respondent.
  2. The district court retained jurisdiction under § 2241 to determine whether Pak was detained under the correct statutory provision and whether she was entitled to a bond hearing.
  3. Pak was not shown to be an arriving alien subject to expedited removal and detention under § 1225(b)(1).
  4. Section 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(1) or § 1225(b)(2)(A), applied to Pak's detention because she was no longer actively seeking admission after residing in the United States for more than two years; detention under § 1225(b) was therefore improper.
  5. Detaining Pak under § 1225(b), thereby denying her an opportunity for a bond determination, violated the procedural Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under § 2241 to review Pak's detention despite statutory limits associated with removal proceedings.
  2. Whether Pak was properly subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) or § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than detention under § 1226(a).
  3. Whether detention under § 1225(b), without an opportunity for a bond determination, violated Pak's procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
  4. Whether Angela Hoover was the proper respondent under the immediate-custodian rule.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (24)

  • Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004)(followed)
  • Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cnty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 444 (3d Cir. 2021)(followed)
  • Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025)(followed)
  • Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 159, 167 (2022)(followed)
  • Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)(followed)
  • A.L. v. Oddo, 761 F. Supp. 3d 822, 827 (W.D. Pa. 2025)(followed)
  • Khalil v. President, United States, 164 F.4th 259, 273-79 (3d Cir. 2026)(followed)
  • Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 285-94 (2018)(followed)
  • Matter of Yajure Pak, 29 I. & N. Dec. 126 (BIA 2025)(not followed)
  • Martinez v. Hyde, 792 F. Supp. 3d 211, 214 (D. Mass. July 24, 2025)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…