District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10285

#1

Jan 22, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - 2241

#2

Jan 23, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper 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 M. Page Kelley. (CM) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#3

Jan 23, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#4

Jan 23, 2026

General Order 19-02

Jan 23, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Feb 06, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

Feb 06, 2026

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

#7

Feb 09, 2026

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having reviewed the petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Petition") filed by Petitioner Ulbio Rosalino Cabrera Cabrera ("Petitioner"), D. 1, and Respondents' response to same, D. 6, the Court ALLOWS the Petition insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021), which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.Factual Background. Petitioner is a noncitizen from Ecuador currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). D. 1 ¶¶ 1, 3. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 2022. Id. ¶ 1. On January 21, 2026, Petitioner was detained by ICE. Id. ¶ 3. Petitioner alleges that his detention is not authorized under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b), and that his custody is properly governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). See id. ¶¶ 5, 15-18. Petitioner contends that his current detention, therefore, violates his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. ¶ 19. He requests a bond hearing. Id. at 4. Discussion. The Petition challenges Petitioner's detention in this district and seeks relief from same. Id. at 3-4. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the Petition as it concerns relief that Petitioner seeks challenging his continued detention. Kong v. United States, 62 F.4th 608, 614 (1st Cir. 2023) (noting that "we have held that district courts retain jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of detention in the immigration context"). Consistent with this Court's prior rulings, including and not limited to Da Silva v. Bondi, No. 25-cv-12672, 2025 WL 2969163, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025), and Dias de Carvalho v. Hyde, 25-cv-12677-DJC (D. Mass. Nov. 4, 2025), D. 14, the Court agrees with Petitioner that his custody is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) (which allows for discretionary determinations of custody before an immigration judge) and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"), as Respondents contend, see D. 6 at 2 n.3; see also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). As alleged, Petitioner was already residing in the United States for more than three years before ICE detained him. D. 1 ¶ 1. Respondents submit that this Court's decision in Dias de Carvalho is likely dispositive here. See D. 6 at 1. Thus, the Court concludes that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). In a footnote, Respondents suggest that "[a]lternatively, this Court should dismiss" the Petition because of Petitioner's professed membership of the class certified in Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12664-PBS. D. 6 at 1 n.2. The Court declines to determine the effect of the Guerrero Orellana declaratory judgment on this case in light of its independent determination regarding Petitioner's entitlement to a bond hearing. See Oliveira Batista v. Hyde, No. 26-cv-10195-FDS (D. Mass. Jan. 27, 2026), D. 9 at 2 n.2 (similar).For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes as follows. The Court ALLOWS the Petition, D. 1, insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government bears the burden of proving Petitioner poses a danger to the community or flight risk, see Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41, which the Court ORDERS within seven (7) days of this Order. Respondents are also ENJOINED from denying Petitioner bond on the basis that he is detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). The Court further ORDERS Respondents to file a status report within ten (10) days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial.(LMH) (Entered: 02/09/2026)

Feb 09, 2026

Order