Yirenkyi v. Hoover, No. 3:25cv2414 (Middle District of Pa. (M.D. PA) Feb. 2, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
EMMANUEL S. YIRENKYI v. ANGELA HOOVER
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania (M.D. PA)
Decided
Feb. 2, 2026
Disposition
Remanded
Majority
Memorandum (J.) (unanimous Court)
EMMANUEL S. YIRENKYI, Petitioner v. ANGELA HOOVER,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 268230Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.EMMANUEL S. YIRENKYI, Petitionerv.ANGELA HOOVER, Warden of the ClintonCounty Correctional Facility, et al., RespondentsNo. 3:25cv2414|Filed 02/02/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsEmmanuel S. Yirenkyi, McElhattan, PA, Pro Se.Richard D. Euliss, DOJ-United States Attorney's Office,Harrisburg, PA, Timothy S. Judge, DOJ-United StatesAttorney's Office, Scranton, PA, for Respondents StephenWaite, Reid, United States Attorney for the Middle District ofPennsylvania.Richard D. Euliss, Michael Butler, DOJ-United StatesAttorney's Office, Harrisburg, PA, Timothy S. Judge, DOJ-United States Attorney's Office, Scranton, PA, for RespondentAngela Hoover.MEMORANDUMJUDGE JULIA K. MUNLEY United States District Court*1 Emmanuel S. Yirenkyi is an immigration detainee inthe custody of the United States Department of HomelandSecurity (“DHS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement(“ICE”). He is currently detained at the Clinton CountyCorrectional Facility in McElhattan, Pennsylvania pursuantto an intergovernmental service agreement.Yirenkyi commenced this action by filing a petition for a writof habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 (Doc. 1). Yirenkyiseeks immediate release from detention under conditions ofsupervision. In the alternative, he seeks a “constitutionallycompliant” bond hearing with an immigration judge (“IJ”).“[T]he Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process oflaw in deportation proceedings.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S.292, 306 (1993). Based on the record and for the reasonsdiscussed below, due process compels a bond hearing with anIJ conducted in accordance with German Santos v. WardenPike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020).BackgroundYirenkyi was born in Ghana in 1994. (Doc. 1-5). He has livedin the United States since December 31, 2012. Id. He wasissued a permanent resident card by United States Customsand Immigration Services. Id. Yirenkyi has a four-year-oldchild, a United States citizen. (Doc. 1-6). He asserts that he isthe only caregiver for his mother. (Doc. 1 at ECF p. 14).*2 On September 13, 2023, Yirenkyi pled guilty toconspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to commitaccess device fraud in the United States District Court for theDistrict of New Jersey, United States v. Yirenkyi, No. 1:23-CR-723-CPO-1 (D.N.J.), (Doc. 8-3 at 13). The HonorableChristine P. O'Hearn sentenced the petitioner to six (6)months imprisonment in August 2024.2 Id. at 14. JudgeO'Hearn further sentenced petitioner to a five (5) year termof supervised release. Id. at 15. Yirenkyi is thus a convictedfelon.The judgment in his criminal case indicates that Yirenkyi issubject to special conditions of supervised release, includingthe Location Monitoring Program administered by U.S.Probation. Id. at 15. Specifically, he must submit to homedetention for a period of six (6) months, but is able to leave hisresidence for employment, education, and religious services.Id. He is required to undergo mental health treatment ina program approved by the U.S. Probation Office. Id. Acondition of supervised release also includes cooperation withICE. Id.Following his conviction and sentence, Yirenkyi was chargedwith 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 anaggravated felony, i.e., that the loss in his case exceeded$10,000. Id.On April 7, 2025, an IJ ordered the petitioner removed toGhana. (Doc. 8-4). Yirenkyi then appealed to the Bureau ofImmigration Appeals (“BIA”). On September 30, 2025, theBIA denied his appeal. (Doc. 8-6). Yirenkyi subsequentlyfiled a Petition for Review with the United States ThirdCircuit Court of Appeals.3 A temporary stay of removal hasbeen entered by the appellate court pending full consideration
EMMANUEL S. YIRENKYI, Petitioner v. ANGELA HOOVER,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2of 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 ofhabeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging hiscontinued immigration detention. (Doc. 1). In that petition,Yirenkyi seeks immediate release or an individualized bondhearing before an IJ. Id. The government filed a response tothe petition on January 6, 2026, (Doc. 8), and the Clerk ofCourt docketed Yirenkyi's traverse on January 27, 2026, (Doc.11).From the record provided by respondents, Yirenkyi hasbeen in ICE custody since April 15, 2025, or presently for9.5 months. (Doc. 8-1 at 1; Doc. 8 at 8, Doc. 8-7, BOPInmate Locator Result). This is generally not consideredan unreasonable amount of time in immigration detention.However, due primarily to the conditions of confinementand the supervised release provisions in Yirenkyi's criminalsentence, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will begranted. In this petitioner's specific circumstances, hisdetention has become unreasonable, and he has a due processright to a bond hearing.JurisdictionUnder 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), a prisoner or detainee mayreceive habeas relief when he “is in custody in violation ofthe 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 wasdetained within the jurisdiction of this court. He remainsin ICE custody at the Clinton County Correctional Facility.Clinton County is located within the boundaries of the UnitedStates District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.28 U.S.C. § 118(b). Consequently, the court has jurisdictionover his Section 2241 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(“Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by...the districtcourts...within their respective jurisdictions.”).Analysis*3 Yirenkyi contends that his immigration detentionhas become prolonged and unconstitutional. Based on thegovernment's response to the petition and the case law citedby Yirenkyi, the parties agree that he is currently detainedpursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Section 1226(c) applies tothe detention of a “criminal alien,” including those whoare “deportable by reason of having committed any offensecovered” in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), the provision thegovernment argues is applicable to Yirenkyi.4Section 1226(c) does not limit the length of the detention itauthorizes, Jennings v. Rodriquez, 583 U.S. 281, 303 (2018),but “a petitioner may still bring an as-applied constitutionalchallenge alleging that his continued detention has becomeunconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the FifthAmendment.” 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.3dat 208-09); see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690(2001) (“statute[s] permitting indefinite detention of an alienwould 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., 656F.3d 221, 233 (3d Cir. 2011), abrogated in part on othergrounds by Jennings, 583 U.S. at 304–05.5The question to be answered is whether the petitioner'sdetention 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 onother grounds by Jennings, 583 U.S. at 304–05).6 Inthis circuit, there is a non-exhaustive list of four factorsto consider in assessing whether an alien's detention hasgrown unreasonable: 1) duration of detention; 2) whetherthe detention is likely to continue; 3) the reasons for thedelay; and 4) whether the conditions of confinement aremeaningfully different from criminal confinement. Id. at 211(citations omitted). By its very nature, the use of a balancingframework 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 mostimportant factor. German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211. Underthe case law, “[t]here is no presumption of reasonablenessor unreasonableness of any duration.” German Santos, 965F.3d at 211 (citing Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 474 n.7;Diop, 656 F.3d at 234). After five (5) months, however, “theconstitutional case for continued detention without inquiryinto its necessity becomes more and more suspect as detentioncontinues[.]” Diop, 656 F.3d at 234 (discussing Demore v.Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 530 (2003)).*4 With respect to the first and most importantconsideration, Yirenkyi has been detained by DHS since atleast April 15, 2025, or 9.5 months. At least one court within
EMMANUEL S. YIRENKYI, Petitioner v. ANGELA HOOVER,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3the appellate jurisdiction of the Third Circuit has determinedthat a nine-month period was an unreasonably long timewhere DHS appealed an IJ decision granting asylum andthere 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 oftenmonths 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 decisionswithin the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Appx.Because 9.5 months is less than the periods typically foundunreasonable in this district, the undersigned finds that theduration factor weighs against relief at this time.With that said, there are no bright lines in the reasonablenessanalysis. See Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 474, n.7. The FifthAmendment requires a more granular look at the other factsof this case.Likelihood of Continued Detention – As to whetherdetention will continue, the court finds that Yirenkyi'sdetention will continue into the foreseeable future. Yirenkyi isdetained on a pre-final order of removal. His appeal to the BIAwas summarily dismissed for “not contain[ing] statementsthat meaningfully apprise the Board of specific reasonsunderlying the challenge to the [IJ's] decision.” (Doc. 8-6 atECF p. 4). His appeal of the BIA decision has been pendingwith the Third Circuit since October 2025. A motion to stayremoval has also been pending since that time. The courtcannot reasonably determine how long Yirenkyi's appeal willbe pending before the Third Circuit or forecast whether it willbe remanded. There will be a delay of undefined duration. SeeDavydov v. Doll, No. 1:19-CV-2110, 2020 WL 969618, at *5(M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2020) (Kane, J). “When the alien's removalproceedings are unlikely to end soon, this suggests thatcontinued 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 reasonsfor 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 orbad-faith ‘errors in the proceedings that cause[d] unnecessarydelay.’ ” Id. (quoting Diop, 656 F.3d at 234).In this case, the government has indicated that Yirenkyi'sconduct prevented meaningful review by the BIA because hedid not file the proper supporting documents. (Doc. 8 at 3).However, from the BIA decision, it appears that Yirenkyi'ssuch conduct may have been attributable to lapses with theattorneys the petitioner hired to represent him. (Doc. 6).Consequently, the court cannot call such conduct “bad faith.”Therefore, because the petitioner has also not demonstratedthat the government has acted in bad faith, this factor isneutral. See German Santos, 965 F.3d at 212.Conditions of Confinement – This factor requires adetermination of whether “the alien's conditions ofconfinement are meaningfully different from criminalpunishment.” Id. at 211 (cleaned up). Under the law, “if analien's civil detention under § 1226(c) looks penal, that tiltsthe scales toward finding the detention unreasonable.” Id.(citing Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 478) (emphasis added).*5 The Clinton County Correctional Facility is a county jail.A jail is a jail and there is no evidence that Yirenkyi is treatedany different than the criminal pretrial detainees in countylockup or those inmates serving state criminal sentencesof shorter durations. Therefore, Yirenkyi's detention isindistinguishable from criminal punishment. See id. at213 (regarding the conditions at Pike County CorrectionalFacility); see also Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 478 (regardingthe conditions at York County Prison).Additionally, the “conditions of confinement” factor and“length of detention” factors are interdependent parts of theGerman Santos reasonableness test. See 965 F.3d at 211(citing Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 478) (“And as the lengthof detention grows, so does the weight that” courts must giveto the conditions of confinement factor). Put another way,with the interdependence of factors, the more conditions looklike a jail sentence as confinement continues, the more thecourt must worry about due process. Id. at 212–13. Here,Yirenkyi has been held at a county jail for over nine (9)months without bail for an alleged violation of civil law. InYirenkyi's case, this factor weighs in favor of granting relief.Other Considerations – German Santos further sets forth thatits four factors are a non-exhaustive list of considerations.Id. at 210. Given the purposes of Section 1226(c), the statutethat Yirenkyi is being detained under, the court considerswhether detention without bond in Yirenkyi's specific case“necessarily serves the purpose of preventing deportable
EMMANUEL S. YIRENKYI, Petitioner v. ANGELA HOOVER,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4criminal aliens from fleeing prior to or during their removalproceedings, thus increasing the chance that, if orderedremoved, [petitioner] will be successfully removed.” Demore,538 U.S. at 528. Therefore, the court takes a step back andlooks at the whole picture. This birds-eye view reveals someinconsistencies within the federal system with respect to thepetitioner.First, a federal judge in Yirenkyi's criminal case granted himbond and allowed him to report to prison voluntarily. Thegovernment trusted Yirenkyi to get himself from New Jerseyto a federal prison in the center of Pennsylvania.Second, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (a federal lawenforcement agency under the United States Departmentof Justice) evaluated Yirenkyi and assigned him to a low-security prison. In the criminal world, the BOP decidedthat he was a low risk. From the record provided byrespondents, Yirenkyi fully served his federal prison sentencewithout incident in a prison environment with lower securitymeasures. Yet, in the civil immigration world, ICE (a federallaw enforcement agency under DHS) keeps Yirenkyi in acounty jail.Third, in the absence of an ICE detainer, Yirenkyi wouldbe subject to five years of supervised release by the U.S.Probation Office with at least the first six (6) months spenton a strict location monitoring program. (Doc. 8-3, ECF p.16). Upon leaving prison, Yirenkyi would have to report toU.S. Probation to be fitted for an ankle monitor and to meetwith his probation officer. Instead, the petitioner is awaitingremoval proceedings behind bars under the watch of a localgovernment's prison guards. This is an irrational outcome. Ina balancing test, such irrationality weighs against continueddetention without a bond hearing.Weighing the Factors – While Yirenkyi has been held indetention for 9.5 months—a fact that weighs against him—theremaining circumstances reveal that his detention has becomeunreasonable. Yirenkyi's petition for a writ of habeas corpuswill be granted.*6 Although Yirenkyi has requested his release, the orderissued in this case will not grant that request. Rather, thepetitioner is entitled to a timely bond hearing with an IJ wherethe government will bear the burden to justify his continueddetention by clear and convincing evidence. German Santos.965 F.3d at 214. The court will add one caveat. If thegovernment does not provide Yirenkyi with a bond hearingwithin thirty (30) days, the petitioner will be ordered releasedand directed to comply with the supervised release provisionsof the criminal sentence imposed on him by the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of New Jersey.ConclusionBased on the foregoing, the court will grant Yirenkyi's petitionfor a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 andenter an appropriate order with the terms discussed in thismemorandum.APPENDIXCase Shonhai v. Lowe, No. CV 3:24-229, 2025 WL 510975,at *5 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2025) (Mannion, J.). Ologbenla v.Lowe, No. 3:25-CV-1351, 2025 WL 2375272, at *3 (M.D. Pa.Aug. 14, 2025) (Munley, J.). Barradas-Jacome v. Lowe, No.1:22-CV-1412, 2023 WL 2742741, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31,2023) (Conner, J.). Diahn v. Lowe, No. 1:24-cv-1936, 2025WL 2115442, at *4 (M.D. Pa. July 11, 2025) (Bloom, C.M.J.),R&R adopted, 2025 WL 2112074 (M.D. Pa. July 28, 2025)(Munley, J.). Baptista v. Lowe, No. 1:23-CV-1666, 2024 WL3410600, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2024) (Bloom, 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-01089, 2023 WL 8259252, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 29,2023) (Kane, J.). Appiah v. Lowe, No. 3:24-CV-2222, 2025WL 510974, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2025) (Mariani, J.).Malede v. Lowe, No. 1:22-CV-01031, 2022 WL 3084304, at*6 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2022) (Schwab, M.J.). Clarke v. Doll,No. 3:20-CV-00031, 2020 WL 4983215, at *4 (M.D. Pa.June 3, 2020) (Saporito, M.J.), R&R 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 Cnty. Corr. Facility, No.3:25-CV-01896, 2025 WL 3522932, at *11 (M.D. Pa. Nov.13, 2025) (Camoni, M.J). R&R adopted in part, rejected inpart on other qrounds, 2025 WL 3513152 (M.D. Pa. Dec.8, 2025) (Wilson, J). White v. Lowe, No. 1:23-CV-1045,2023 WL 6305790, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2023), rev'dand 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 Jacquesv. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 1:21-CV-1144, 2021 WL4494623, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2021) (Mariani, J.).Ibrahim v. Superintendent of Miami Corr. Facility, No. 1:25-CV-00727. 2026 WL 116489, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2026)
EMMANUEL S. YIRENKYI, Petitioner v. ANGELA HOOVER,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5(Wilson, J). McDougall v. Warden, Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility,No. 3:23-CV-759, 2023 WL 6161038, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept.21, 2023) (Mariani, J.). Shapovalov v. Immigr. & CustomsEnf't Agency, No. 1:21-CV-0900. 2021 WL 3128747, at *3(M.D. Pa. July 23, 2021) (Wilson, J.). Sydykov v. Immigr.& Customs Enf't, No. 1:21-CV-00575, 2021 WL 2222732. at*2 (M.D. Pa. June 2, 2021) (Wilson. J.). Acevedo v. Decker,No. 1:20-CV-01679, 2021 WL 120473, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jan.13, 2021) (Wilson, J.). Barradas-Jacome v. Lowe, No. 1:21-CV-1885, 2022 WL 256299, at *3 (M D Pa. Jan. 26, 2022)(Conner, J.). Baghdad v. Doll, No. 1:21-CV-293, 2021 WL1391784, at *6 (M D Pa. Apr. 13, 2021) (Rambo, J.) Emav. Wilkinson, No. 1:21-CV-00172, 2021 WL 3878289, at *5(M.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2021) (Schwab, M.J.), R&R adopted,2021 WL 3871300 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2021) (Mariani, J.)Salau v. Hoover, No. 3:25-CV-02295, 2026 WL 49557, at *4(M.D. Pa. Jan 7, 2026) (Mehalchick, J). Ndungu v. Doll, No.4:20-CV-2268, 2021 WL 1916700, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Apr, 9,2021) (Arbuckle, J.), R&R adopted, 2021 WL 1910083 (M.D.Pa. May 12, 2021) (Mariani, J.) Approximate Duration ofDetention Without Bond Hearing 24 months 24 months22 months 19 months 19 months 19 months 18 months 18months 18 months 15 months 15 months 14 months 13months 13 months 9 months 9 months 9 months 8 months8 months 7 months 2 months 1 month Factor OutcomeWeighs in favor of relief Weighs in favor of relief Weighsin favor of relief Weighs in favor of relief Weighs infavor of relief Does not weigh in favor of relief Weighsin favor of relief Weighs in favor of relief Weighs infavor of relief Weighs in favor of relief Does not weigh infavor of relief Does not weigh in favor of relief Neutralfactor Does not weigh in favor of relief Does not weighin favor of relief Does not weigh in favor of relief Doesnot weigh in favor of relief Does not weigh in favor ofrelief Does not weigh in favor of relief Does not weighin favor of relief Does not weigh in favor of relief Doesnot weigh in favor of relief Disposition Bond hearinggranted Bond hearing granted Bond hearing denied Bondhearing granted Bond hearing granted Bond hearinggranted Bond hearing denied Bond hearing granted Bondhearing granted Bond hearing granted Bond hearingdenied Bond hearing denied Bond hearing granted Bondhearing denied Bond hearing denied Bond hearing deniedBond hearing denied Bond hearing denied Bond hearingdenied Bond hearing denied Bond hearing denied Bondhearing deniedAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 268230Footnotes1Like many recent filings by pro se litigants, Yirenkyi's petition and traverse were drafted with the aid ofgenerative artificial intelligence. The court sees two issues with petitioner's reliance on Al. First, his petitionanalyzes several seminal cases but omits controlling Third Circuit case law, German Santos v. Warden PikeCnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020). Second, and more troublesome, Yirenkyi's traverse citescases from the Middle District of Pennsylvania which do not exist—further examples of legal hallucinationscreated by large language models. (See Doc. 11 at 7 (citing “Frederick v. Warden, 2019 WL 1318445 (M.D.Pa. Mar. 22, 2019)” and “Rodriquez v. Lowe, 2018 WL 683974 (M.D.Pa. Feb. 2, 2018)”). Yirenkyi cites thesetwo cases to argue that “[c]ourts have found detention in the 8–10 month range constitutionally significantand requiring a release or a bond hearing[.]” Id. Although “Rodriquez” would appear to involve a detaineeheld at the Pike County Correctional Facility where Craig Lowe is the warden, the Westlaw citation providedfor that “case” directs to a family court decision from Quebec (in French). No case in this district stands for theproposition that detention in the 8–10 month range requires release or a bond hearing, at least since GermanSantos was decided in July 2020. To be sure, the court has researched decisions from the Middle District ofPennsylvania 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, inICE custody at a county jail, and appears to be relying on outside sources to supply him with legal materials.
EMMANUEL S. YIRENKYI, Petitioner v. ANGELA HOOVER,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.62Defendant filed a pro se appeal of his conviction and sentence in February 2025. That appeal remainspending. See United States v. Yirenkyi, No. 25-1294 (3d Cir.).3Claims regarding the length of immigration detention without a bond hearing do not get funneled into thePetition for Review process. Khalil v. President, United States, No. 25-2162, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 111933,at *12 (3d Cir. Jan. 15, 2026)4An “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3). “Any alienwho 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 victimor victims exceeds $10,000.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M).5Jennings did not call into question the holding in Diop that detention under Section 1226 may violate dueprocess if unreasonably long. Borbot v. Warden Hudson Cnty. Corr. Facility, 906 F.3d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 2018).6Jennings 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, 965F.3d at 210.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access