Patel v. Almodovar
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-07357
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Smit Patel v. Judith Almodovar, Judge Furman scheduled a conference and temporarily barred Patel’s removal while his petition remains pending.
Smit Patel may not be removed from the United States unless and until the court orders otherwise; counsel for all parties must attend the scheduled conference.
What happened
In Smit Patel v. Judith Almodovar, the court ordered counsel for all parties to attend a remote telephone conference on September 5, 2025, at noon.
The court also ordered that Smit Patel not be removed from the United States unless and until the court orders otherwise. The order said this would preserve the court’s authority to decide the petition.
Judge Jesse Furman issued the notice and temporary protection but did not decide the petition’s underlying legal issues.
The detailed version
- Patel v. Almodovar · No. 1:25-cv-07357
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
The opinion is a notice of conference in Smit Patel’s pending petition against Judith Almodovar and the other respondents. The text does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the parties’ arguments.
Court’s Order
The court ordered counsel for all parties to appear for a conference by telephone on September 5, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. The conference was to be held remotely under Rule 3(B) of Judge Furman’s individual rules and practices.
The court also ordered that Patel not be removed from the United States unless and until the court orders otherwise. It explained that this temporary restriction was intended to preserve the court’s jurisdiction—its authority to decide the petition—while the petition remains pending. The court cited decisions involving temporary restrictions on removal for that proposition.
Disposition and Effect
The order did not decide the petition’s merits. It scheduled a conference and temporarily barred Patel’s removal pending further order. Judge Jesse M. Furman signed the order on September 5, 2025.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.