Trong Quy Nguyen v. Michael Ball, in his official capacity as Acting Deputy Field Office Director, Buffalo Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, et al.

1:26-CV-01099-EAW · United States District Court for the Western District of New York · June 17, 2026 · No. 1:26-CV-01099-EAW

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted Trong Quy Nguyen’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition to the extent it sought a bond hearing regarding his civil immigration detention. The court ordered an immigration judge to conduct the hearing by June 24, 2026, required the government to prove dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, and directed consideration of less-restrictive alternatives and Nguyen’s ability to pay. Respondents were also ordered to file a status update by June 26, 2026.

Court
United States District Court for the Western District of New York
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of New York
Decision date
June 17, 2026
Docket number
1:26-CV-01099-EAW
Procedural posture
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a civil immigration detainee seeking, among other relief, a bond hearing.
Standard of review
The Court applied the procedural due process balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge to determine the constitutionally required procedures and burden of proof for continued immigration detention.
Precedential value
Unknown; district court decision identified in the source metadata as having unknown precedential status.
Parties
Trong Quy Nguyen v. Michael Ball, in his official capacity as Acting Deputy Field Office Director, Buffalo Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, et al.
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

immigration detentionremoval proceedingsprocedural due processdue processimmigration

Practice areas

immigration detentionhabeas corpusconstitutional lawcivil procedureremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Petitioner was entitled to a bond hearing concerning his continued detention pending removal proceedings.
  2. Whether the government must prove dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence at the bond hearing.
  3. What procedures and findings are required for continued detention and for setting bond.

Holdings

  1. Petitioner was entitled to a bond hearing because his detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than the mandatory-detention provision in § 1225(b)(2), under the circumstances addressed by the controlling and analogous decisions.
  2. The government must prove dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence at the bond hearing.
  3. To continue detention after the hearing, the immigration judge must find by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably ensure the petitioner's appearance and community safety; if that burden is not met, the judge must consider the petitioner's ability to pay and alternative conditions of release when setting bond.

Key quotations

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. (at 2)
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 (at 3)

Factual background

Petitioner is a civil immigration detainee held in ICE custody at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York, pending removal proceedings. He challenged the legal basis and continued duration of his detention under the United States Constitution and sought relief under § 2241. Respondents acknowledged that decisions addressing the same or similar detention policy required that Petitioner receive a bond hearing.

Procedural history

Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his detention in ICE custody pending removal proceedings. Respondents failed to timely respond to the Court's show-cause deadline but were granted an extension; they then acknowledged that controlling and analogous decisions required the same outcome. The Court granted the petition to the extent it sought a bond hearing and directed that the hearing occur before an immigration judge.

Remand instructions

An immigration judge must conduct a bond hearing on or before June 24, 2026, subject to a reasonable continuance requested by Petitioner. The government bears the burden of proving dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence; the immigration judge must consider less-restrictive alternatives, ability to pay, and alternative conditions of release. Respondents must file a status update by June 26, 2026.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…