New diagnosis poses serious risk to NYC public school student detained by ICE, his lawyers say
Worse yet, for days after learning of his diagnosis, Dylan's legal team at the New York Legal Assistance Group was unable to reach him until Monday, according to new filings in a federal court case known as a 'habeas corpus' petition, where he is challenging his detention as unlawful. Dylan, 20-year-old Venezuelan, is currently being held in Pennsylvania.
At a conference Monday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines in Pennsylvania denied Dylan's emergency motion, though his lawyers said they were told they could refile after the court and federal government review the medical records. His broader case challenging his detention remains ongoing.
'While we are disappointed with today's decision by the judge, we remain unwavering in our determination to fight for justice, due process and to bring Dylan home as soon as humanly possible,' said a NYLAG spokesperson.
Dylan had been receiving medical tests for gastrointestinal issues that could be symptoms of Crohn's disease or cancer at the time he was detained, the Daily News previously reported. His medical records and other sensitive health information were put under seal on Monday.
'It would be profoundly unfair, and irreversible, if prolonging this unlawful detention causes further and possibly very serious harm to this young man's health at an exceptionally delicate point in his medical history,' Dylan's filings continued. Immigration cases are not available to the public, and his last name is being withheld per his family's request.
Separately, the city's Law Department made a motion to file an amicus brief on Monday, insisting the manner in which Dylan was arrested at a routine court hearing on May 21 could deter people from accessing the court system.
'The implications threaten to reach well beyond the immigration arena and reach the countless other matters affecting public welfare that require our residents to appear in court every day,' read the city's filing in support of Dylan.
In a statement alongside the brief, Mayor Eric Adams added Dylan was going through the legal process to be allowed to work, and accessed a public center helping migrants avoid city shelters and become independent.
'But instead of being rewarded for following the law, he was punished for doing what we all asked him to do,' Adams said.
DHS did not return a request for comment on Monday afternoon but last week condemned a Biden-era asylum process that allowed immigrants like Dylan to enter the country with a notice to appear before a judge. The agency claimed President Donald Trump has gone back to following the law and that the student and others in his position should have faced expedited removal from the beginning.
'If individuals have a valid credible-fear claim, they will continue in immigration proceedings,' officials said in a statement, 'but if no valid claim is found, aliens will be subject to a swift deportation.'
He has since notched a win in the process when he passed DHS's credible fear interview, meaning he will not be deported immediately and can bring his case back before an immigration judge — the process he was undertaking when he was suddenly arrested.
Dylan, a student at Ellis Prep High School, is pursuing a pathway to a green card. He has no criminal record.
His detention has struck a chord with New York politicians and advocates, who turned out last week en masse to protest his detention and Adams' relative silence on his arrest before the amicus brief filed Monday.
_____
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EDITORIAL: Trump should mull kicking Bondi out
Editor's note: This editorial originally ran in fellow CNHI paper Tahlequah (Oklahoma) Daily Press. So now some in the Trump administration are saying documents detailing the sex-trafficking investigation into the late Jeffrey Epstein were invented by former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. This smacks of another ridiculous move to rewrite history — something that's become all too common in the political arena these days, and by putting the kibosh on the implication that the files would be released, President Trump has now hoisted himself with his own petard. For many months now, conservative activists and pundits have demanded that Epstein's so-called 'client list' be made public. In fact, a number of speculative documents have been circulating just as long, featuring names of high-profile Democrats in political and entertainment circles. Some of the besmirched individuals are otherwise well-respected, without any blemishes to their reputations. At least, they were squeaky-clean until the speculative lists began making the rounds on social media. In hindsight, it's obvious that many conservatives — and more than a few liberals — believed the apparent slander generated by these lists. and given the nature of the targeted people, it's no surprise that Americans would want the guilty parties tarred and feathered, if rumors they were involved in trafficking children are true. At this point, it's impossible to say whether a list exists — and if there is, whose names might be on it. The smart money is on a swatch of elite from both political parties. But it wasn't the Democrats who were clamoring about the Epstein files; after all, according to the MAGA crowd, Democrats were implicated far more than Republicans. Indeed, many who are now in the Trump administration were among those pushing the hardest for a reveal. If Trump wants the furor over the supposed client list to die down, he's going to have to get rid of the people in his Cabinet who have used the purported existence of this document to damage the reputations of their perceived enemies. He'll have to start with Attorney General Pam Bondi, who strongly implied she had the list on her desk. Though she later clarified she was referring to the entire Epstein file, the fact that she's refusing to release whatever is there — or telling the American public to 'move along, nothing to see here' — smacks of a potential coverup. Bondi and others like her have two choices: either to admit they were making it all up as they went along to ruin a number of celebrities and well-heeled folks in the opposing camp, or to release the documents and let the chips fall where they may. If they don't, MAGA loyalists — the vast majority of whom believe the list exists — are going to turn on them. Whether they will turn on Trump is anybody's guess, but with the midterms looming, he can't really afford to take the chance. Trump's claim that 'nobody cares' about the Epstein case is dead wrong, and he knows it — although he may hope by saying that, it will come to pass. In this case, he's better off doing what he does best: Hang the purveyors of the sordid tale out to dry, thereby saving his own skin — and with it, his big, beautiful agenda. Solve the daily Crossword
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Jonathan Turley: Ghislaine Maxwell 'appears to be untapped as to her account'
A 'Fox News Sunday' legal panel weighs in on the Epstein case as Ghislaine Maxwell sits for an interview with the DOJ, the Russia collusion hoax revelations and the investigation into former President Biden's mental acuity.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
The legal pushback that could complicate Trump's AI plan
The Trump administration's new 'Action Plan' to support US dominance in artificial intelligence is all but certain to be met with legal pushback, especially from civil rights advocates and copyright holders. President Trump and administration officials spent Wednesday promoting the plan and three accompanying executive orders after repealing much of President Biden's comparatively protectionist AI policies with a prior executive order in January. Key pillars of the new Trump plan include accelerating permitting to build the data centers needed to create AI technologies, expanding the export of US-made AI, and freeing foundational AI models of ideological bias. 'From now on, the US government will deal only with AI that pursues truth, fairness, and strict impartiality,' Trump said on Wednesday in remarks from an AI Summit at Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C. The plan also seeks to clear away legal headwinds, such as state-specific AI restrictions, and environmental and copyright laws. Constitutional law scholars say the administration can expect litigation to target his directives that are on less solid legal footing, such as his executive order requiring bias-free algorithms. That order bans the federal government from procuring AI technology infused with partisan bias and ideological agendas. The requirement may be impossible to fulfill, the lawyers said. And even if eradicating bias were possible, government discrimination against developers may not hold up under a First Amendment challenge, they added. 'Any executive order that purports to require neutrality among AI doesn't understand how AI works,' said Stanford University technology law professor Mark Lemley. He cautioned that if the government were to deny developers from securing government contracts based on viewpoints expressed in their technologies, it could draw constitutional challenges. Technology lawyer Star Kashman agreed, and added that the concept of unbiased AI is 'nice,' but in practice would limit the use of all AI systems in this early stage of development. 'All AI systems carry inherent bias,' Kashman said. Further complicating the idea, Kashman said, is that the orders seem to penalize companies based on the perceived ideological leanings of their AI systems or their training data sets. 'What would it mean for an AI system to be 'biased'...and who determines that standard? 'Who decides what the truth is?' AI systems are trained on content across the internet, using data written by humans. Every person has their own bias, which then slips into AI models that process information pulled from the web. 'The way I see it is that there is definitely bias in AI," Cornell University assistant professor of information technology Aditya Vashistha told Yahoo Finance. "I ask people, do you see bias on the internet? Do you see that people have some thoughts around certain demographics, identities, cultures, and so on? And usually, the answer is 'Yes'.' Even evaluating AI systems for bias is a fraught exercise, he added. 'If you want to design an AI technology which is telling the truth, who decides what the truth is, and how do you even measure it?' Vashistha pointed to language bias in AI models, explaining that while Hindi is spoken by more than 500 million people, far more than the population of the US, roughly 60% of the data online is English and just 0.6% is in Hindi. That leads to AI systems that focus on English first, while leaving other languages out. Another hurdle ripe for challenge is the administration's plan to provide some level of insulation to large language models from copyright infringement claims. Dozens of copyright holders have sued large language model developers, including Meta (META) and Anthropic ( arguing that the developers must pay rights holders before allowing generative AI software to interpret their works for profit. Rights holders also argue that the AI output cannot resemble their original works. "There is no predicting what's going to come out the other end of those cases," Courtney Lytle Sarnow, an intellectual property partner with CM Law, told Yahoo Finance in June. Sarnow and other intellectual property experts said they expect the disputes will end up in appeals to the US Supreme Court. 'Of course, you can't copy or plagiarize an article,' Trump said. 'But if you read an article and learn from it, we have to allow AI to use that pool of knowledge without going through the complexity of contract negotiations, of which there would be thousands.'
