Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 10, 2023

Katab v. US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:23-cv-02764
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
ImmigrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Katab v. US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement: Judge Subramanian granted an adjournment and rescheduled the hearing.

Who this affects

Eslam Mohamed Katab and the government respondents, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

What happened

In Katab v. US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, the court granted a motion to postpone a hearing. The hearing was moved from October 16, 2023, to October 24, 2023, at 11:30 a.m.

The court noted that Eslam Mohamed Katab had been detained for more than two years and apparently had never received a bond hearing addressing whether he posed a danger or flight risk. The court asked the government to consider voluntarily providing such a hearing, but did not order it in this ruling.

Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order on October 10, 2023. The ruling granted the adjournment motion and rescheduled the hearing.

The detailed version

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

Case
Katab v. US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement · No. 1:23-cv-02764
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Oct. 10, 2023

Background

The court addressed a motion to postpone a hearing involving petitioner Eslam Mohamed Katab. The opinion states that Katab had been held in detention for more than two years and apparently had never received a bond hearing to determine whether he posed a danger or flight risk. His initial hearing apparently consisted of a judge finding that he was subject to mandatory detention.

Court’s Action

The court granted the motion for an adjournment. It moved the hearing previously scheduled for October 16, 2023, to Tuesday, October 24, 2023, at 11:30 a.m.

The court also stated that the government should consider whether, given the case’s unusual circumstances, it would voluntarily agree to provide Katab with a bond hearing. The court cited a prior related proceeding in which an individualized bond hearing was ordered for a person detained for almost two years, with the government required to prove dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. This order itself did not order the government to provide Katab a bond hearing.

Disposition

Judge Arun Subramanian granted the motion for an adjournment and rescheduled the hearing. The opinion does not state a final ruling on Katab’s detention or entitlement to a bond hearing.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.