Opinion

GULYER

Court
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 38.3%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SERKAN GULYER, )

Petitioner,

VS. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-482

) Judge Stephanie L. Haines

WARDEN OF MOSHANNON VALLEY ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

PROCESSING CENTER, )

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Presently before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 filed pro se by Serkan Gulyer (“Petitioner”) (ECF No. 1). Petitioner is detained at

Moshannon Valley Processing Center and challenges his mandatory immigration detention

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) but instead asserts he is subject to detention under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1226(a) which allows him potential release on bond. This matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Maureen P. Kelly for proceedings in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.

C. § 636, and Local Civil Rule 72.D.

On January 7, 2026, Magistrate Judge Kelly filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

17) recommending that the Petition (ECF No. 1) be conditionally granted requiring Respondent to

provide Petitioner with a substantive bond hearing and that Petitioner should be granted a period

of time to submit a motion for fees and/or costs. ECF No. 17, p. 1. Judge Kelly stated that

Petitioner’s detention under the Board of Immigration and Appeals decision in Matter of Jonathan

Javier Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216, 228-29 (BIA 2025), that resulted in the mandatory

detention of aliens who entered the United States without inspection, regardless of where they

were apprehended or how long they have been physically present in the United States, has been

soundly rejected by the overwhelming majority of district courts, including this one. ECF No. 17,

p. 5. The Parties were advised they could file objections to the Report and Recommendation by

January 21, 2025. See 28 U.S.C.§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Civil Rule 72.D.2. Respondent

filed timely objections (ECF No. 18) continuing to argue the merits of Hurtado to the facts of this

case and argues against the Petitioner’s entitlement to move for costs. This Court finds

Respondent’s arguments summarily unavailing. See Calzado Diaz y. Noem, No. 3:25- cv-458,

2025 WL 3628480 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2025) (Haines, J.), vacated as moot, ECF No. 22 (Dec. 17,

2025) (the legal conclusions in Calzado are unaffected by the mooting of the order due to the

individual facts of Mr. Calzado Diaz's case); 4.D. v. Leonard Oddo et. al., No. CV 25-460J, 2026

WL 101476, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2026).

Upon review of the record and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) pursuant to

Local Civil Rule 72.D.2, the Court will accept in whole the findings and recommendations of

Magistrate Judge Kelly in this matter. Judge Kelly correctly found that Petitioner’s detention is

rightly considered under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and as such he is entitled to a bond hearing.

Accordingly, the following order is entered:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2026, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) hereby is CONDITIONALLY

GRANTED. Respondent is to provide Petitioner with a substantive bond hearing before a neutral

immigration judge within ten (10) days of this Order; and,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner is not provided with a bond hearing by the

timeframe specified, or if the immigration judge declines to conduct a bond hearing based on the

findings in Hurtado, the writ shall issue and Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from

custody; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent is to notify the Court within seven (7) days

of the bond hearing it’s results; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is provided ten (10) in which to submit a

motion for fees and/or costs, should he wish to do so; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 17) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court; and,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter closed.

i Ae fe ni Z et PB

StepHanie L. Haines

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.