Chan v. Almodovar

E.D. New York

Chan v. Almodovar

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-05095

StatusUnknown

This text of Chan v. Almodovar (Chan v. Almodovar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chan v. Almodovar, (E.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

YUN CHAN, Plaintiff-Petitioner, 25 Civ. 7492 -v- ORDER JUDITH ALMODOVAR, in her official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of New York, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, PAM BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT Defendants-Respondents.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: At approximately 12:07 a.m. this morning, counsel for plaintiff-petitioner Yun Chan emailed this Court, sitting in its Part I capacity, (1) a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a complaint, Dkt. 1; (2) a notice of an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that would prohibit respondents from removing Mr. Chan from the jurisdiction of this District, Dkts. 6, 6-6; and (3) a memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits in support of that motion; Dkts. 6-1 through 6-6. The email that transmitted these materials to the Court copied Government counsel. The Court expects that this case will be assigned imminently to a district judge in this District (the “assigned judge”) who will supervise the case on a permanent basis, including acting on petition(s) for emergency relief. Solely to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction over this

matter pending a ruling by the assigned judge on the pending motion for a TRO, plaintiff- petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the assigned judge orders otherwise. See, e.g., Local 1814, Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, AFL-CIO v. New York Shipping Ass’n, Inc., 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992) (“Once the district court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and the parties to, the litigation, the All Writs Act [28 U.S.C. § 1651] authorizes a federal court to protect that jurisdiction” (cleaned up)); Garcia-Izquierdo v. Gartner, No. 4 Civ. 7377, 2004 WL 2093515, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2004) (observing that, under the All Writs Act, a district court may order that a petitioner’s deportation be stayed “when a stay is necessary to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction of the case”); cf Michael v. I. N.S., 48 F.3d 657, 661-62 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that the All Writs Act provides a federal court of appeals reviewing a final removal order with a basis to stay removal). SO ORDERED.

Fank A. Ep PAUL A. ENGELMA WER United States District Judge, sitting in Part I capacity Dated: September 10, 2025 New York, New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

YUN CHAN, Plaintiff-Petitioner, 25 Civ. 7492 -v- ORDER JUDITH ALMODOVAR, in her official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of New York, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, PAM BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT Defendants-Respondents.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: At approximately 12:07 a.m. this morning, counsel for plaintiff-petitioner Yun Chan emailed this Court, sitting in its Part I capacity, (1) a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a complaint, Dkt. 1; (2) a notice of an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that would prohibit respondents from removing Mr. Chan from the jurisdiction of this District, Dkts. 6, 6-6; and (3) a memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits in support of that motion; Dkts. 6-1 through 6-6. The email that transmitted these materials to the Court copied Government counsel. The Court expects that this case will be assigned imminently to a district judge in this District (the “assigned judge”) who will supervise the case on a permanent basis, including acting on petition(s) for emergency relief. Solely to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction over this

matter pending a ruling by the assigned judge on the pending motion for a TRO, plaintiff- petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the assigned judge orders otherwise. See, e.g., Local 1814, Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, AFL-CIO v. New York Shipping Ass’n, Inc., 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992) (“Once the district court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and the parties to, the litigation, the All Writs Act [28 U.S.C. § 1651] authorizes a federal court to protect that jurisdiction” (cleaned up)); Garcia-Izquierdo v. Gartner, No. 4 Civ. 7377, 2004 WL 2093515, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2004) (observing that, under the All Writs Act, a district court may order that a petitioner’s deportation be stayed “when a stay is necessary to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction of the case”); cf Michael v. I. N.S., 48 F.3d 657, 661-62 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that the All Writs Act provides a federal court of appeals reviewing a final removal order with a basis to stay removal). SO ORDERED.

Fank A. Ep PAUL A. ENGELMA WER United States District Judge, sitting in Part I capacity Dated: September 10, 2025 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chan v. Almodovar, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chan-v-almodovar-nyed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack