District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10033

#1

Jan 05, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11453043 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Ivan Stanly Alfaro-Umana. (Attachments: # 1 Entry of Appearance, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet) (Nice, Robin) Modified on 1/6/2026: to remove duplicate docket text (EZG). (Entered: 01/05/2026)

#2

Jan 05, 2026

Judge Myong J. Joun:EMERGENCY ORDER CONCERNING STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (RN) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

#3

Jan 06, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Julia E. Kobick assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Paul G. Levenson. (CM) (Entered: 01/06/2026)

#4

Jan 06, 2026

General Order 19-02, dated June 1, 2019 regarding Public Access to Immigration Cases Restricted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c). (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 01/06/2026)

#5

Jan 06, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OR TRANSFER OF REMOVAL entered.The answer or responsive pleading is due no later than January 6, 2026. (Attachment(s): # 1 *SEALED* Appendix) (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 01/06/2026)

#6

Jan 06, 2026

Copy re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 5 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal mailed to Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, and Kristi Noem on 1/6/2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 01/06/2026)

Jan 06, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jan 06, 2026

Copy Mailed

#7

Jan 12, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#8

Jan 12, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#9

Jan 13, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The petitioner is given leave to file an amended petition on or before January 15, 2026. As the respondents correctly point out, a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must "be directed to the person having custody of the person detained," 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and this petition does not name Antone Moniz, Superintendent of the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, as a respondent. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-42 (2004). Failure to file an amended petition on or before January 15, 2026 that names the petitioner's immediate custodian as a respondent will result in dismissal of this petition without prejudice. In the event the petitioner files a timely amended petition that names his immediate custodian as a respondent, the respondents are further ORDERED to file a supplemental response by January 16, 2026. The respondents represent that, "[i]f Petitioner were to amend this Petition so it names his immediate custodian, . . . this Court conceivably could determine that Petitioner's detention is authorized not by 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), but instead by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and therefore order Petitioner receive a bond hearing in Immigration Court to challenge his detention." ECF 8, at 11 (citing Gomes v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-11571, 2025 WL 1869299 (D. Mass. Jul. 7, 2025); dos Santos v. Noem, No. 25-cv-12052, 2025 WL 2370988 (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2025); Sampiao v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-1198, 2025 WL 2607924 (D. Mass. Sep. 9, 2025)). The respondents have given the Court no basis—no declaration and no supporting documents—upon which it could make that determination. The supplemental response should therefore clarify whether the respondents concede, as they have with prior petitions, that this Court's decisions in Gomes, dos Santos, and Sampiao dictate that this petitioner is likewise subject to detention under Section 1226(a) and eligible for a bond hearing. If the respondents do not so concede, their supplemental response must provide necessary facts and state with more specificity their contention that the petitioner's detention is mandated by Section 1225(b). (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 01/13/2026)

Jan 13, 2026

Order

#10

Jan 15, 2026

Amended Complaint

#11

Jan 16, 2026

Answer/Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#12

Jan 16, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Ivan Stanly Alfaro-Umana, a citizen of El Salvador who entered the United States in October 2023, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on January 5, 2026. ECF 1 ; ECF 10, ¶ 1. He filed an amended petition on January 15, 2026 adding Antone Moniz as a respondent and seeking, among other things, his immediate release, or, alternatively, a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). ECF 10, at 14, and ¶ 4. He is currently detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and remains in ICE’s custody at Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 2.The respondents argue that Alfaro-Umana is lawfully detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). They acknowledge, however, that the facts of Alfaro-Umana’s case are similar to those addressed in Gomes v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-11571-JEK, 2025 WL 1869299 (D. Mass. July 7, 2025), dos Santos v. Noem, No. 25-cv-12052-JEK, 2025 WL 2370988 (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2025), and Sampiao v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-11981-JEK, 2025 WL 2607924 (D. Mass. Sept. 9, 2025), because Alfaro-Umana “entered the United States without inspection or admission” and was “released pursuant to an Order of Recognizance.” ECF 11, at 7. Nor do the respondents dispute that, as in Gomes, dos Santos, and Sampiao, Alfaro-Umana was arrested pursuant to a warrant. In Gomes, dos Santos, and Sampiao, this Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)—not Section 1225(b)(2)—governed the petitioner’s detention. Gomes, 2025 WL 1869299, at *7; dos Santos, 2025 WL 2370988, at *7; Sampiao, 2025 WL 2607924, at *8. The respondents acknowledge that, in light of those decisions and Alfaro-Umana’s comparable factual circumstances, “this Court would find Section 1226(a), and not Section 1225(b)(2) as the source of ICE’s detention authority.” ECF 11, at 7. The Court agrees and therefore concludes that Section 1226(a), not Section 1225(b), governs Alfaro-Umana’s detention.Noncitizens like Alfaro-Umana “detained under Section 1226(a) have the right to request a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge, at which the government bears the burden to prove that continued detention is justified.” Sampiao, 2025 WL 2607924, at *1. Bond may be denied only if the government “either (1) prove[s] by clear and convincing evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a danger to the community or (2) prove[s] by a preponderance of the evidence that [the noncitizen] poses a flight risk.” Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021).For the foregoing reasons, Alfaro-Umana’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF 10, is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to provide him with a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within 7 days of this Order. The respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report on or before January 26, 2026, notifying the Court whether Alfaro-Umana has been granted bond and released or, if his request for bond was denied, providing the reasons for that denial. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 01/16/2026)

Jan 16, 2026

Order

#13

Jan 27, 2026

Status Report

#14

Jan 27, 2026

Judgment