IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EMMANUEL S. YIRENKYI, : No. 3:25cv2414 Petitioner : : (Judge Munley) V. : ANGELA HOOVER, Warden of the : Clinton County Correctional Facility, : et al., : Respondents :
MEMORANDUM Emmanuel S. Yirenkyi is an immigration detainee in the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). He is currently detained at the Clinton County Correctional Facility in McElhattan, Pennsylvania pursuant to an intergovernmental service agreement. Yirenkyi commenced this action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.' (Doc. 1). Yirenkyi seeks immediate release
1 Like many recent filings by pro se litigants, Yirenkyi’s petition and traverse were drafted with the aid of generative artificial intelligence. The court sees two issues with petitioner's reliance Al. First, his petition analyzes several seminal cases but omits controlling Third Circuit case law, German Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020). Second, and more troublesome, Yirenkyi’s traverse cites cases from the Middle District of Pennsylvania which do not exist—further examples of legal hallucinations created by large language models. (See Doc. 11 at 7 (citing “Frederick v. Warden, 2019 WL 1318445 (M.D. Pa Mar. 22, 2019)” and “Rodriguez v. Lowe, 2018 ‘WL 683974 (M.D.Pa. Feb. 2, 2018)”). Yirenkyi cites these two cases to argue that “[c]ourts have found detention in the 8-10 month range constitutionally significant and requiring a release or a bond hearing[.]” Id. Although “Rodriguez” would appear to involve a detainee held at the Pike County Correctional Facility
from detention under conditions of supervision. In the alternative, he seeks a
“constitutionally compliant” bond hearing with an immigration judge (“lJ”). “(T]he Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993). Based on the record
and for the reasons discussed below, due process compels a bond hearing with
an IJ conducted in accordance with German Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr.
Facility, 965 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020). Background Yirenkyi was born in Ghana in 1994. (Doc. 1-5). He has lived in the United States since December 31, 2012. Id. He was issued a permanent resident card by United States Customs and Immigration Services. Id. Yirenkyi has a four-year-old child, a United States citizen. (Doc. 1-6). He asserts that he is the only caregiver for his mother. (Doc. 1 at ECF p. 14). On September 13, 2023, Yirenkyi pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to commit access device fraud in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, United States v. Yirenkyi, No. 1:23-CR-723-
where Craig Lowe is the warden, the Westlaw citation provided for that “case” directs to a family court decision from Québec (in French). No case in this district stands for the proposition that detention in the 8-10 month range requires release or a bond hearing, at least since German Santos was decided in July 2020. To be sure, the court has researched decisions from the Middle District of Pennsylvania since that time and supplied its findings in an appendix to this memorandum. In this instance, no show cause order will be issued regarding any possible sanctionable conduct. The petitioner is pro se, in ICE custody at a county jail, and appears to be relying on outside sources to supply him with legal materials.
CPO-1 (D.N.J.), (Doc. 8-3 at 13). The Honorable Christine P. O’Hearn sentenced the petitioner to six (6) months imprisonment in August 2024.? Id. at 14. Judge O’Hearn further sentenced petitioner to a five (5) year term of supervised release. Id. at 15. Yirenkyi is thus a convicted felon. The judgment in his criminal case indicates that Yirenkyi is subject to special conditions of supervised release, including the Location Monitoring Program administered by U.S. Probation. Id. at 15. Specifically, he must submit to home detention for a period of six (6) months, but is able to leave his residence for employment, education, and religious services. Id. He is required to undergo mental health treatment in a program approved by the U.S. Probation Office. Id. A condition of supervised release also includes cooperation with ICE. Id. Following his conviction and sentence, Yirenkyi was charged with being a removable alien pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). (Doc. 8-1). In the removal proceedings, the government alleges that petitioner's conviction was an aggravated felony, i.e., that the loss in his case exceeded $10,000. Id. On April 7, 2025, an IJ ordered the petitioner removed to Ghana. (Doc. 8- 4). Yirenkyi then appealed to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). On
2 Defendant filed a pro se appeal of his conviction and sentence in February 2025. That appeal remains pending. See United States v. Yirenkyi, No. 25-1294 (3d Cir.).
September 30, 2025, the BIA denied his appeal. (Doc. 8-6). Yirenkyi subsequently filed a Petition for Review with the United States Third Circuit Cour of Appeals. ° A temporary stay of removal has been entered by the appellate court pending full consideration of Yirenkyi’s motion to stay. See United States v. Yirenkyi, No. 25-3113 (3d Cir.), (Doc. 3). On December 15, 2025, Yirenkyi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued immigration detention. (Doc. 1). In that petition, Yirenkyi seeks immediate release or an individualized bond hearing before an IJ. Id. The government filed a response to the petition or January 6, 2026, (Doc. 8), and the Clerk of Court docketed Yirenkyi’s traverse on January 27, 2026, (Doc. 11). From the record provided by respondents, Yirenkyi has been in ICE custody since April 15, 2025, or presently for 9.5 months. (Doc. 8-1 at 1; Doc. 8 at 8, Doc. 8-7, BOP Inmate Locator Result). This is generally not considered an unreasonable amount of time in immigration detention. However, due primarily to the conditions of confinement and the supervised release provisions in Yirenkyi’s criminal sentence, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be
3 Claims regarding the length of immigration detention without a bond hearing do not get funneled into the Petition for Review process. Khalil v. President, United States, No. 25-2162, - -- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 111933, at *12 (3d Cir. Jan. 15, 2026)
granted. In this petitioner’s specific circumstances, his detention has become unreasonable, and he has a due process right to a bond hearing. Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), a prisoner or detainee may receive habeas relief when he “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). Yirenkyi filed the instant petition while he was detained within the jurisdiction of this court. He remains in ICE custody at the Clinton County Correctional Facility. Clinton County is located within the boundaries of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 118(b). Consequently, the court has jurisdiction over his Section 2241 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (“Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by...the district courts...within their respective jurisdictions.”). Analysis Yirenkyi contends that his immigration detention has become prolonged and unconstitutional. Based on the government’s response to the petition and the case law cited by Yirenkyi, the parties agree that he is currently detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Section 1226(c) applies to the detention of a “criminal alien,” including those who are “deportable by reason of having
committed any offense covered” in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), the provision the
government argues is applicable to Yirenkyi.* Section 1226(c) does not limit the length of the detention it authorizes, Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 303 (2018), but “a petitioner may still bring
an as-applied constitutional challenge alleging that his continued detention has become unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Ibrahim v. Superintendent of Miami Corr. Facility, No. 1:25-CV-00727, 2026 WL 116489, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2026) (Wilson, J) (citing German Santos, 965 F.3d at 208-09); see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001) (“statute[s] permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional problem’). In such as-applied challenges, “when detention becomes unreasonable, the Due Process Clause demands a hearing.” German Santos, 965 F.3d at 210 (quoting Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 233 (3d Cir. 2011), abrogated in part on other grounds by Jennings, 583 U.S. at 304- 05.°
4 An “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3). “Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii). An “aggravated felony” includes “an offense that...involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M). 5 Jennings did not call into question the holding in Digan that detention under Section 1226 may violate due process if unreasonably long. Borbot v. vivarden Hudsor Cinty. Carr Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 2018).
The question to be answered is whether the petitioner’s detention is reasonable—‘“a ‘highly fact-specific’ inquiry.” Id. (quoting Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 474 (3d Cir. 2015), abrogated in part on other grounds by Jennings, 583 U.S. at 304—05).® In this circuit, there is a non- exhaustive list of four factors to consider in assessing whether an alien’s detention has grown unreasonable: 1) duration of detention; 2) whether the detention is likely to continue; 3) the reasons for the delay; and 4) whether the conditions of confinement are meaningfully different from criminal confinement. Id. at 211 (citations omitted). By its very nature, the use of a balancing framework makes any determination of reasonableness a fact-intensive proposition. See Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 474. Duration of Detention — Duration of detention is the most important factor. German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211. Under the case law, “[t]here is no presumptior of reasonableness or unreasonableness of any duration.” German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211 (citing Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 474 n.7; Diop, 656 F.3d at 234). After five (5) months, however, “the constitutional case for continued detention without inquiry into its necessity becomes more and more suspect as detention
6 Jennings did not abrogate the holdings in Diop and Chavez-Alvarez that Section 1226(c) is unconstitutional “when applied to detain an alien an unreasonably long [time] without a bond hearing.” German Santos, 965 F.3d at 210.
continues[.]” Diop, 656 F.3d at 234 (discussing Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 530 (2003)). With respect to the first and most important consideration, Yirenkyi has been detained by DHS since at least April 15, 2025, or 9.5 months. At least one court within the appellate jurisdiction of the Third Circuit has determined that a nine-month period was an unreasonably long time where DHS appealed an lJ decision granting asylum and there was “no end in sight” to the detention. Mashchenko v. Rokosky, No. CV 25-12387 (RK), 2026 WL 185204, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 25, 2026) (Kirsch, J.) (quoting German Santos, 965 F.3d at 213) (applying factors to Section 1225(b) family-separation detention); see also A.L. v. Oddo, 761 F. Supp. 3d 822, 826 (W.D. Pa. 2025) (holding that detention of ten months weighed in favor of a bond hearing for a 1225(b) detainee under the German santos factors). Such cases appear to be outliers when compared to decisions within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Appx. Because 9.5 months is less than the periods typically found unreasonable in this district, the undersigned finds that the duration factor weighs against relief at this time. With that said, there are no bright lines in the reasonableness analysis. See Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 474, n.7. The Fifth Amendment requires a more granular look at the other facts of this case.
Likelihood of Continued Detention — As to whether detention will continue, the court finds that Yirenkyi’s detention will continue into the foreseeable future. Yirenkyi is detained on a pre-final order of removal. His appeal to the BIA was summarily dismissed for “not contain[ing] statements that meaningfully apprise the Board of specific reasons underlying the challenge to the [IJ’s] decision.” (Doc. 8-6 at ECF p. 4). His appeal of the BIA decision has been pending with the Third Circuit since October 2025. A motion to stay removal has also been pending since that time. The court cannot reasonably determine how long Yirenkyi’s appeal will be pending before the Third Circuit or forecast whether it will be remanded. There will be a delay of undefined duration. See Davydov v. Doll, No. 1:19-CV-2110, 2020 WL 969618, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2020) (Kane, J). “When the alien's removal proceedings are unlikely to end soon, this suggests that continued detention without a bond hearing is unreasonable.” German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211 (3d Cir. 2020). Consequently, this factor weighs in favor of relief. Reasons for the Delay - The third factor considers the reasons for the delay, “such as a detainee's request for continuances.” Id. (citing Diop, 656 F.3d at 234; Demore, 538 U.S. at 531). The court also asks, “whether either party made careless or bad-faith ‘errors in the proceedings that cause[d] unnecessary delay.’ ” Id. (quoting Diop, 656 F.3d at 234).
In this case, the government has indicated that Yirenkyi’s conduct prevented meaningful review by the BIA because he did not file the proper supporting documents. (Doc. 8 at 3). However, from the BIA decision, it appears that Yirenkyi’s such conduct may have been attributable to lapses with the attorneys the petitioner hired to represent him. (Doc. 6). Consequently, the court cannot call such conduct “bad faith.” Therefore, because the petitioner has also not demonstrated that the government has acted in bad faith, this factor is neutral. See German Santos, 965 F.3d at 212. Conditions of Confinement — This factor requires a determination of whether “the alien's conditions of confinement are meaningfully different from criminal punishment.” Id. at 211 (cleaned up). Under the law, “if an alien's civil detention under § 1226(c) looks penal, that tilts the scales toward finding the detention unreasonable.” Id. (citing Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 478) (emphasis added). The Clinton County Correctional Facility is a county jail. A jail is a jail and there is no evidence that Yirenkyi is treated any different than the criminal pretria detainees in county lockup or those inmates serving state criminal sentences of shorter durations. Therefore, Yirenkyi’s detention is indistinguishable from criminal punishment. See id. at 213 (regarding the conditions at Pike County
Correctional Facility); see also Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 478 (regarding the
conditions at York County Prison). Additionally, the “conditions of confinement” factor and “length of detention factors are interdependent parts of the German Santos reasonableness test. See 965 F.3d at 211 (citing Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 478) (“And as the lengftl of detention grows, so does the weight that” courts must give to the conditions of confinement factor). Put another way, with the interdependence of factors, the
more conditions look like a jail sentence as confinement continues, the more the court must worry about due process. Id. at 212-13. Here, Yirenkyi has been hel at a county jail for over nine (9) months without bail for an alleged violation of civ! law. In Yirenkyi’s case, this factor weighs in favor of granting relief. Other Considerations — German Santos further sets forth that its four factors are a non-exhaustive list of considerations. Id. at 210. Given the
purposes of Section 1226(c), the statute that Yirenkyi is being detained under, the court considers whether detention without bond in Yirenkyi’s specific case “necessarily serves the purpose of preventing deportable criminal aliens from fleeing prior to or during their removal proceedings, thus increasing the chance that, if ordered removed, [petitioner] will be successfully removed.” Demore, 538 U.S. at 528. Therefore, the court takes a step back and looks at the whole
picture. This birds-eye view reveals some inconsistencies within the federal system with respect to the petitioner. First, a federal judge in Yirenkyi’s criminal case granted him bond and allowed him to report to prison voluntarily. The government trusted Yirenkyi to get himself from New Jersey to a federal prison in the center of Pennsylvania. Second, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (a federal law enforcement agency under the United States Department of Justice) evaluated Yirenkyi and assigned him to a low-security prison. In the criminal world, the BOP decided that he was
a low risk. From the record provided by respondents, Yirenkyi fully served his federal prison sentence without incident in a prison environment with lower security measures. Yet, in the civil immigration world, ICE (a federal law enforcement agency under DHS) keeps Yirenkyi in a county Jail. Third, in the absence of an ICE detainer, Yirenkyi would be subject to five
years of supervised release by the U.S. Probation Office with at least the first six (6) months spent on a strict location monitoring program. (Doc. 8-3, ECF p. 16). Upon leaving prison, Yirenkyi would have to report to U.S. Probation to be fitted for an ankle monitor and to meet with his probation officer. Instead, the petitione is awaiting removal proceedings behind bars under the watch of a local government’s prison guards. This is an irrational outcome. In a balancing test, such irrationality weighs against continued detention without a bond hearing.
Weighing the Factors — While Yirenkyi has been held in detention for 9.5 months—a fact that weighs against him—the remaining circumstances reveal that his detention has become unreasonable. Yirenkyi’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be granted. Although Yirenkyi has requested his release, the order issued in this case will not grant that request. Rather, the petitioner is entitled to a timely bond hearing with an IJ where the government will bear the burden to justify his continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. German Santos, 965 F.3d at 214. The court will add one caveat. If the government does not provide Yirenkyi with a bond hearing within thirty (30) days, the petitioner will be ordered released and directed to comply with the supervised release provisions of the criminal sentence imposed on him by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the court will grant Yirenkyi’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and enter an appropriate order the terms discussed in this memorandum.
aff Date: Pecan Ne ted Staten K. MUNLEY d States District Court
| APPENDIX | Case Approximate Factor —_| Disposition
Shonhai v. Lowe, No. CV 3:24-229, | 24 months Weighs in Bond |} 2025 WL 510975, at *5 (M.D. Pa. favor of relief | hearing Feb. 14, 2025) (Mannion, J.). granted | Ologbenla v. Lowe, No. 3:25-CV- 24 months Weighs in Bond || 1351, 2025 WL 2375272, at *3 favor of relief | hearing || (M.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2025) (Munley, granted J,). || Barradas-Jacome v. Lowe, No. 22 months Weighs in Bond || 1:22-CV-1412, 2023 WL 2742741, favor of relief | hearing at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2023) denied (Conner, J.). Diahn v. Lowe, No. 1:24-cv-1936, 19 months Weighs in Bond || 2025 WL 2115442, at *4 (M.D. Pa. favor of relief | hearing July 11, 2025) (Bloom, C.M.J.), R&R granted adopted, 2025 WL 2112074 (M.D. Pa. July 28, 2025) (Munley, J.). || Baptista v. Lowe, No. 1:23-CV- 19 months Weighs in Bond || 1666, 2024 WL 3410600, at *2 favor of relief | hearing || (M.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2024) (Bloom, granted C.M.J.), R&R adopted, No. 1:23-CV- || 01666, 2024 WL 3410587 (M.D. Pa. || May 7, 2024) (Mannion, J.). | Elyardo v. Lechleitner, No. 1:23-CV- | 19 months Weighs in Bond 01089, 2023 WL 8259252, at *2 favor of relief | hearing | (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2023) (Kane, J.). granted Appiah v. Lowe, No. 3:24-CV-2222, | 18 months Does not Bond 2025 WL 510974, at *4 (M.D. Pa. weigh in favor | hearing Feb. 14, 2025) (Mariani, J.). of relief denied Malede v. Lowe, No. 1:22-CV- 18 months Weighs in Bond |} 01031, 2022 WL 3084304, at *6 favor of relief | hearing || (M.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2022) (Schwab, granted
Clarke v. Doll, No. 3:20-CV-00031, 18 months Weighs in Bond 2020 WL 4983215, at *4 (M.D. Pa. favor of relief | hearing June 3, 2020) (Saporito, M.J.), R&R granted adopted, 481 F. Supp. 3d 394 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (Conner, J.), app. dismissed, No. 20-3162, 2021 WL 1740271, at *1 (3d Cir. Jan. 13, 2021). Santana-Rivas v. Warden of Clinton | 15 months Weighs in Bond Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 3:25-CV- favor of relief | hearing 01896, 2025 WL 3522932, at *11 granted (M.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2025) (Camoni, M.J), R&R adopted in part, rejected in part on other grounds, 2025 WL 3513152 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2025) (Wilson, J). White v. Lowe, No. 1:23-CV-1045, 15 months Does not Bond 2023 WL 6305790, at *2 (M.D. Pa. weigh in favor | hearing Sept. 27, 2023), rev'd and of relief denied remanded sub nom. White v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, No. 23-2872, 2024 WL 4164269 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2024) (detention had reached 27 months). Saint Jacques v. Dep't of Homeland | 14 months Does not Bond Sec., No. 1:21-CV-1144, 2021 WL weigh in favor | hearing 4494623, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, of relief denied 2021) (Mariani, J.). Ibrahim v. Superintendent of Miami | 13 months Neutral factor | Bond Corr. Facility, No. 1:25-CV-00727, hearing 2026 WL 116489, at *4 (M.D. Pa. granted Jan. 15, 2026) (Wilson, J). McDougall v. Warden, Pike Cnty. 13 months Does not Bond Corr. Facility, No. 3:23-CV-759, weigh in favor | hearing 2023 WL 6161038, at *2 (M.D. Pa. of relief denied Sept. 21, 2023) (Mariani, J.). Shapovalov v. Immigr. & Customs 9 months Does not Bond Enft Agency, No. 1:21-CV-0900, weigh in favor | hearing 2021 WL 3128747, at *3 (M.D. Pa. of relief denied July 23, 2021) (Wilson, J.).
Sydykov v. Immigr. & Customs Enft, | 9 months Does not Bond No. 1:21-CV-00575, 2021 WL weigh in favor | hearing 2222732, at *2 (M.D. Pa. June 2, of relief denied 2021) (Wilson, J.). Acevedo v. Decker, No. 1:20-CV- 9 months Does not Bond 01679, 2021 WL 120473, at *4 weigh in favor | hearing (M.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2021) (Wilson, of relief denied J.). Barradas-Jacome v. Lowe, No. 8 months Does not Bond 1:21-CV-1885, 2022 WL 256299, at weigh in favor | hearing *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2022) of relief denied (Conner, J.). Baghdad v. Doll, No. 1:21-CV-293, 8 months Does not Bond 2021 WL 1391784, at *6 (M.D. Pa. weigh in favor | hearing Apr. 13, 2021) (Rambo, J.) of relief denied Ema v. Wilkinson, No. 1:21-CV- 7 months Does not Bond 00172, 2021 WL 3878289, at *5 weigh in favor | hearing (M.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2021) (Schwab, of relief denied M.J.), R&R adopted, 2021 WL 3871300 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2021) (Mariani, J.) Salau v. Hoover, No. 3:25-CV- 2 months Does not Bond 02295, 2026 WL 49557, at *4 (M.D. weigh in favor | hearing Pa. Jan. 7, 2026) (Mehalchick, J). of relief denied
Ndungu v. Doll, No. 4:20-CV-2268, 1 month Does not Bond 2021 WL 1916700, at *5 (M.D. Pa. weigh in favor | hearing Apr. 9, 2021) (Arbuckle, J.), R&R of relief denied adopted, 2021 WL 1910083 (M.D. Pa. May 12, 2021) (Mariani, J.)
2Q