govinfo:USCOURTS-pawd-3_26-cv-00901-0

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
MOUHAMED NDONG, ) 
 ) 
 Petitioner, ) 
 ) 
 v. ) Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-901 
 ) 
LEONARD ODDO et al., ) 
 ) 
 Respondents. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM ORDER 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
Presently pending before the Court is pro se Petitioner Mouhamed Ndong’s Petition for a 
Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket No. 3) (the “Petition”). In response, 
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Docket No. 6). For the reasons set forth herein, 
Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted and Petitioner’s Petition will be denied. 
II. DISCUSSION 
 
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Senegal. (Docket No. 6 at 1). In an Order dated March 
13, 2026, an immigration judge found, based on Petitioner’s own admissions, that Petitioner is 
removable from the United States. (Docket No. 6 -1 at 2). Petitioner made an application solely 
for volu ntary departure in lieu of removal 1 and waived appeal of all issues . ( Id.). Notably, 
consenting to such voluntary departure permits Petitioner to avoid receipt of a formal order of 
removal and preserves a future legal pathway for returning to the United States. Accordingly, the 
immigration judge granted Petitioner pre-conclusion voluntary departure in lieu of removal. (Id.). 
While the immigration judge ’s O rder did not include conditions requiring Petitioner to post a 
 
1 See also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26. 

 
2 
 
voluntary departure bond or provide his passport or travel documentation, the O rder did include 
the term “Under safeguards.” (Id.). The immigration judge further ordered that if the conditions 
of his Order were not met as required or if Petitioner failed to depart as required, the grant ing of 
pre-conclusion voluntary departure would be withdrawn and an order entered pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1240.26(d) would become effective – which order would include Petitioner’s removal to Senegal 
on the charge(s) set forth in the Notice to Appear. (Id.). 
The phrase voluntary departure “under safeguards” refers to the procedure involving an 
alien’s detention until departure. See Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 762, 766 (BIA 2009) 
(stating that “the term ‘voluntary departure with safeguards’ is commonly used to characterize the 
requirement that an alien remain in custody until he or she departs from the United States”) ; 
Hernandez v. Warden, Eden Det. Ctr., No. 6:26-CV-00053-H, 2026 WL 593532, at *4 (N.D. Tex. 
Mar. 3, 2026). Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 240.25(b), the granting of voluntary departure may include 
the attachment of “any conditions [deemed] necessary to ensure the alien’s timely departure from 
the United States, including the posting of a bond, continued detention pending departure , and 
removal under safeguards.” 8 C.F.R. § 240.25(b) (emphasis added). Additionally, an immigration 
judge “may impose such conditions as he or she deems necessary to ensure the alien’s timely 
departure from the United States.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(b)(3)(i). 
Finally, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain whether the immigration judge’s 
voluntary departure order is valid. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f) ( stating that “[n]o court shall have 
jurisdiction over an appeal from denial of a request for an order of voluntary departure . . . nor 
shall any court order a stay of an alien’s removal pending consideration of any claim with respect 
to voluntary departure”); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (stating that “no court shall have jurisdiction to 

 
3 
 
review . . . (i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief” under §1229c ); see also Reynoso-
Lopez v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 275, 280-81 (3d Cir. 2004) (discussing the aforementioned statutes). 
III. CONCLUSION 
 
Petitioner is subject to voluntary departure under safeguards and thus falls outside the 
purview of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and he is therefore neither entitled to a bond hearing nor otherwise 
releasable pending his voluntary departure in accordance with the immigration judge ’s Order . 
Therefore, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted and Petitioner’s Petition will be 
denied. 
Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order: 
 
 AND NOW, this 9th day of June, 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents’ 
Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED, and Petitioner Mouhamed Ndong’s Petition for 
a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket No. 3) is DENIED. 
 The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed. 
 
/s/ W. Scott Hardy 
W. Scott Hardy 
United States District Judge 
 
cc/ecf: All counsel of record 
 

Passage view · GavelSight