Patel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VINAYKUMAR PATEL, : Civil No. 1:25-CV-02271

:

Petitioner, :

:

v. :

:

PAMELA BONDI, et al., :

:

Respondents. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 filed by Petitioner Vinaykumar Patel (“Patel”) arguing that he should be

released on bond. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons that follow, the court will deny Patel’s

petition.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Patel is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States on

September 24, 2015, as a nonimmigrant B-2 with authorization to remain in the

United States until March 21, 2016. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 1, 7; Doc. 6-2, p. 2.)1 On

September 29, 2017, Patel filed an application for asylum. (Doc. 1, ¶ 7; Doc. 6-2,

p. 2.) On June 21, 2019, Patel was the manager of a convenience store in Lock

Haven, Pennsylvania where an armed robbery purportedly occurred. (Doc. 1, ¶ 8.)

Patel then filed an I-918 application for a U-Nonimmigrant visa (“U-Visa”) on

1 For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.

November 1, 2019. (Doc. 1, ¶ 8; Doc. 6-2, pp. 2–3.) After investigation of the

robbery, law enforcement determined that there was no armed robbery, rather, this

was a scheme to obtain a U-Visa. (Doc. 1, ¶ 9; Doc. 6-2, pp. 2–3.) On April 17,

2024, Patel was convicted in the Middle District of Pennsylvania of multiple

counts of fraud related to his false U-Visa application and sentenced to eighteen

months imprisonment. (Doc. 1, ¶ 9; Doc. 6-2, p. 3.)

While serving his federal sentence, Patel was encountered by Department of

Homeland Security (“DHS”) agents and investigated. (Doc. 6-2, p. 2.) DHS

ultimately issued an immigration detainer and warrant for Patel’s arrest because

DHS determined that Patel is an alien who is removable from the United States.

(Id.) Patel was transferred to Clinton County Prison based on his immigration

detainer on December 17, 2024. (Doc. 6-9.)

Patel requested custody redetermination pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1236 before

an immigration judge (“IJ”). (See Doc. 6-6.) The IJ denied Patel’s request because

the IJ determined that Patel was a danger to the community. (Id.) Patel appealed

this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (Doc. 6-7.) The BIA

held that Patel’s custody determination was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) such

that Patel had to establish that he was not a present danger to the community, a

threat to national security, or a flight risk. (Doc. 6-8, p. 3.) The BIA upheld the

IJ’s decision, finding that Patel was a danger to the community because of the

“recency and seriousness” of his criminal convictions. (Id.)

On September 11, 2025, an immigration judge found Patel removable to

India pursuant to Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(“INA”). (Doc. 6-4.) The immigration judge denied Patel’s applications for

asylum, withholding of removal under Section 241(b)(3) of the INA, withholding

of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and deferral of

removal under CAT. (Id. at 1.) Patel appealed this determination, which is now

pending before the BIA. (Doc. 6-5.)

Patel filed the present habeas petition on November 26, 2025, against

multiple Respondents, including Angela Hoover, Warden of Clinton County

Correctional Facility.2 (Doc. 1.) Pursuant to the court’s December 4, 2025 order,

Respondents filed a response on December 18, 2025, and Patel filed a traverse on

December 28, 2025. (Docs. 5, 6, 7.) Respondents also filed a notice of

2 In addition to Angela Hoover, Petitioner named Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United

States; Thomas Decker, Field Office Director, Philadelphia Field Office, DHS, ICE; Kristi

Noem, Secretary, DHS; and DHS, ICE. (Doc. 1.) Respondents, in a footnote, submit that the

only proper respondent is Angela Hoover because she is the Warden of Clinton County

Correctional Facility. (Doc. 6, p. 1 n.1.) In this case, consistent with Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542

U.S. 426, 447 (2004), Petitioner has named the Warden as a respondent. Padilla, 542 U.S. at

447 (“Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody

within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent.”) The court will not address

an argument requesting dismissal of other respondents when only raised in a footnote.

supplemental authority on January 16, 2026.3 (Doc. 8.) Thus, Patel’s petition is

ripe for review.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), a district court may consider a writ of

habeas corpus when an immigration detainee is “in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Claims related to an

immigration detainee’s request for release from confinement must be brought as a

habeas petition as these “claims fall within the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus.”

Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025) (quoting Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 167

(2022)). Jurisdiction for “core habeas petitions . . . lies in only one district: the

district of confinement.” Id. (quoting Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443

(2004)) (internal quotations omitted). Patel is detained at the Clinton County

Correctional Facility, which is within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28

U.S.C. § 118(b).

DISCUSSION

Patel requests to be released on bond. (Doc. 1, pp. 2, 6–7.) In his petition,

Patel argues that he has exhausted “administrative remedies to the extent required

3 The court notes that this notice of supplemental authority quotes the United States Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit’s recent decision in Khalil v. President, United States, --- F.4th ----,

2026 WL 111933 (3d Cir. Jan. 15, 2026). However, Respondents did not argue how Khalil or

the jurisdiction stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) applies to Patel’s petition. Thus, the

court will not address Khalil in this memorandum.

by law, and his only remedy is by way of this judicial action.” (Id. ¶ 11.) He then

submits that he is being detained under the discretionary detention provision of 8

U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), so he is not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1226(c)(1). (Id. ¶ 12.)

In response, Respondents argue that Patel failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies because he could have requested a bond re-determination

hearing based on changed circumstances, which he failed to do. (Doc. 6, pp. 6–8.)

Additionally, Respondents submit that the IJ and BIA’s decisions to deny Patel’s

bond request is not subject to judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). (Id. at 6.)

Alternatively, Respondents argue that Patel’s petition should be denied because his

detention is lawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and thus, this court cannot provide

any habeas relief. (Id. at 8–12.)

In his traverse, Patel argues that exhausting his administrative remedies

would be futile as his circumstances have not changed. (Doc. 7, p. 2.) He also

generally argues for the first time that his detention is prolonged, and thus, he

should be given a new bond hearing. (Id. 2–3.)

At the outset, the court notes that Patel failed to set forth any argument

regarding the length of his detention in his petition. (See Doc. 1.) Because this

argument was raised for the first time in Patel’s traverse (or reply), this argument is

waived, and the court will not address it further. Hamrick v. Warden of FCI-

Allenwood Low, No. 4:23-cv-567, 2023 WL 7413330, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 9,

2023) (citing Hayes v. Silvers, Langsam & Weitzman, P.C., 441 F. Supp. 3d 62, 67

n.5 (E.D. Pa. 2020); McLendon v. Cont’l Can Co., 908 F.2d 1171, 1183 (3d Cir.

1990)).

Turning to the merits of Patel’s petition,4 Patel’s arguments appear to be

premised on the assumption that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).

(See Doc. 1, p. 6.) However, the immigration records provided by Respondents,

which include a decision from the BIA affirming the IJ’s denial of bond, indicate

that Patel is detained pursuant to Section 1226(a). (See Doc. 6-8.) Further, the

court observes that Patel has not argued that his detention is unlawful or that he

was not afforded appropriate process as required by Section 1226(a). Rather, he

takes issue with the fact that he was not released on bond. The petitioner in Borbot

v. Warden Hudson County Correctional Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 276–77 (3d Cir.

2018), made a similar argument but added that the length of his detention was the

basis for his due process challenge. There, the Third Circuit held that “Borbot

cites no authority, and we can find none, to suggest that duration alone can sustain

a due process challenge by a detainee who has been afforded the process

contemplated by § 1226(a) and its implementing regulations” as opposed to a

4 The court reviews the merits of this petition because, regardless of whether Patel exhausted his

administrative remedies, his petition fails on the merits.

petitioner detained pursuant to § 1226(c). Id. at 277. Here, Patel does not

challenge the length of detention or any lack of due process in his petition, thus,

there is no relief that this court can provide. Accordingly, Patel’s petition will be

denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the court will deny Patel’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus. An appropriate order follows.

s/Jennifer P. Wilson

JENNIFER P. WILSON

United States District Judge

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: January 28, 2026