Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 3, 2025

Yao v. Almodovar

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:25-cv-09982
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasImmigrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Qunijie Yao v. Judith Almodovar, Judge Engelmayer ordered a response to Yao’s federal petition and barred removal while the court considers it.

Who this affects

Qunijie Yao, the defendants, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York; the order prevents Yao’s removal unless the court later orders otherwise.

What happened

Qunijie Yao v. Judith Almodovar concerns a petition filed under federal law. The order does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or decide whether Yao should win.

The court directed the Clerk to notify the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. That office must file an answer or other response by December 8, 2025, and Yao may file reply papers by December 10, 2025.

Judge Engelmayer ordered that Yao not be removed from the United States unless and until the court orders otherwise. The order says this restriction is intended to preserve the court’s authority to decide the petition; it does not resolve the petition’s merits.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Yao v. Almodovar · No. 1:25-cv-09982
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Dec. 3, 2025

Nature of the Order

The court issued an interim order after examining Qunijie Yao’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion does not explain the petition’s underlying claims or decide the merits of those claims.

Required Responses

The Clerk of Court must electronically notify the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that the order was issued. The U.S. Attorney’s Office must file an answer or other pleading responding to the petition by Monday, December 8, 2025. Yao may file reply papers, if any, by Wednesday, December 10, 2025.

Restriction on Removal

To preserve the court’s authority to decide the petition, the court ordered that Yao not be removed from the United States unless and until the court orders otherwise. The order cites the federal law authorizing courts to protect their jurisdiction and several decisions involving temporary restrictions on removal for that purpose.

Disposition

This is a procedural order requiring responses and maintaining the status quo while the petition is pending. It does not state whether the petition is granted or denied and does not decide the petition’s underlying legal question.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.