Vinaykumar Patel v. Pamela Bondi, et al.

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

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

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

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

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