District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10316

#1

Jan 23, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11495346 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Sonia Yamileth Reyes Arauz. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Freidel, Irene) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#2

Jan 23, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Indira Talwani 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. (JAM) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#3

Jan 23, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/23/2026: # 1 *Sealed* Appendix) (SEC). (Entered: 01/23/2026)

#4

Jan 23, 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). (SEC) (Entered: 01/23/2026)

Jan 23, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Jan 27, 2026

Extension of Time to File Answer

#6

Jan 28, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Jan 28, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting nunc pro tunc Assented to Motion for Extension of Time. Respondent's time to respond to the Petition [ 1 ] is extended to today, January 28, 2026. (SEC) (Entered: 01/28/2026)

#8

Jan 28, 2026

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

Jan 28, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

#9

Jan 30, 2026

Extension of Time

#10

Jan 30, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER allowing 9 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to January 30 at 11:59 pm to file Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (SEC) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#11

Jan 30, 2026

Affidavit

#12

Jan 30, 2026

Affidavit

#13

Jan 30, 2026

Memorandum of Law

Jan 30, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#14

Feb 13, 2026

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and incorporated Memorandum by Sonia Yamileth Reyes Arauz.(Freidel, Irene) (Entered: 02/13/2026)

#15

Feb 17, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: In her Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ 1 ], Petitioner alleges that though she “has been detained for over 90 days, upon information and belief, her immigration attorney has not received any notification of ICE having conducted a custody review interview, despite counsel having a G-28 Notice of Appearance on file since October 22, 2025.” Pet. ¶ 9 [ 1 ]. Petitioner’s declaration notes further that in late November 2025, Petitioner received a document from ICE in English, which another detainee helped her read and informed her that “it said something about [Petitioner’s] history and that [Petitioner] had to remain in detention.” Arauz Decl. ¶ 14 [ 12 ]. Petitioner’s Reply in Support of Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ 13 ] asserts that this document may have been a custody review determination, but that it was not provided to Petitioner’s counsel. Id. at 4 (“Ms. Reyes described receiving only two sets of documents from ICE while detained there: one was the decision from the asylum officer, and the other seems to be a custody review determination . . . [Petitioner’s] attorney describes not having received any notice from ICE before the custody review took place or notice of any decision.”).Where Respondents’ Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ 8 ] does not address whether Petitioner has received a custody review interview, Respondents shall, no later than February 20 at noon, submit a declaration stating whether a custody review interview has taken place and, if so, on what date, whether ICE subsequently made a custody review determination, and whether such a determination was sent to Petitioner’s counsel.Additionally, where Petitioner argues in her Reply [ 13 ] that Respondent’s failure to provide notice of a 90-day custody review violates the Accardi doctrine and Petitioner’s procedural due process rights, Reply 16 [ 13 ], Respondents may file a surreply, no longer than five pages, responding to this argument also by February 20 at noon.(SEC) (Entered: 02/17/2026)

Feb 17, 2026

Order

#16

Feb 19, 2026

Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

#17

Feb 20, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: On January 23, 2026, in her initial filing in this matter, Petitioner Sonia Yamileth Reyes Arauz alleged inter alia, that "though Ms. Reyes has been detained for over 90 days, upon information and belief, her immigration attorney has not received any notification of ICE having conducted a custody review interview, despite counsel having a G-28 Notice of Appearance on file since October 22, 2025." Emer. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ¶ 9. Despite receiving an extension of time to respond to the Petition, see Electronic Order [ 7 ], and proceeding with a full, not abbreviated, response, see Respondents' Opp'n to Pet. [ 8 ], Respondents did not address this allegation. Petitioner again (and with greater detail) raised this issue in her Reply in Support of Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [ 13 ]. See id. at 16-18. Although Respondents did not seek leave to file a surreply in light of this more fulsome argument, on February 17, 2026, the court provided Respondents a further opportunity to address the argument, directing Respondents to, no later than February 20, 2026, at noon, submit a declaration stating whether Petitioner had received a custody review interview while detained, and, if so, to provide information regarding when the interview had taken place, "whether ICE subsequently made a custody review determination, and whether such a determination was sent to Petitioner's counsel." Electronic Order [ 15 ]. The order additionally permitted Respondents to file a surreply, no longer than five pages, responding to Petitioner's Reply [ 13 ]. Electronic Order [ 15 ].On February 19, 2026, Respondents filed a Motion for Extension of Time [ 16 ] requesting an extension of the deadline to February 24, 2026, in part "to gather and analyze [relevant] facts[.]" Id. ¶ 5. The court would appreciate receiving that additional information in order to make an informed decision, and accordingly, will grant the requested extension.In light of the liberty interests at stake, however, where this inquiry should have occurred prior to Respondents' initial response, and in any event, upon review of the Petitioner's reply brief, the court orders Respondents to release Petitioner no later than February 21, 2026, under such conditions as Respondents determine are appropriate. This order is for a temporary release only, while Respondents are gathering and analyzing the relevant facts and preparing their responsive filings, and while this court has an opportunity to review them and resolve the pending matter. (SEC) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

#18

Feb 20, 2026

Response to Court Order

Feb 20, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

#19

Feb 23, 2026

Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Response to Court Order (ECF No. 18) by Sonia Yamileth Reyes Arauz.(Freidel, Irene) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

#20

Feb 23, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER allowing [ 19 ] Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Response to Court Order no later than February 27, 2026. Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (SEC) (Entered: 02/23/2026)

Feb 23, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to File Document

#21

Feb 26, 2026

NOTICE by Sonia Yamileth Reyes Arauz re 14 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and incorporated Memorandum (Freidel, Irene) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#22

Feb 26, 2026

Assented to MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Rachel Amelia Lerman Filing fee: $ 125, receipt number AMADC-11572967 by Sonia Yamileth Reyes Arauz. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certification of Rachel Lerman)(Freidel, Irene) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

#23

Feb 26, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 22 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Added Rachel Amelia Lerman. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must have an individual upgraded PACER account, not a shared firm account, to electronically file in the District of Massachusetts. Counsel may need to link their CM/ECF account to their upgraded individual pacer account. Instructions on how to link CM/ECF accounts to upgraded pacer account can be found at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/nextgen-current-pacer-accounts.htm#link-account. (SEC) (Entered: 02/26/2026)

Feb 26, 2026

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear

#24

Feb 27, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER terminating Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ 14 ] as withdrawn without prejudice as moot, see Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order without Prejudice [ 21 ]. (SEC) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#25

Feb 27, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

Feb 27, 2026

Order on Motion for TRO

#26

Jun 03, 2026

Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Petitioner Sonia Yamileth Reyes Arauz’s Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ 1 ], filed January 23, 2026, averred that she had been detained by Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) since September 9, 2025, and that, inter alia, "though Ms. Reyes has been detained for over 90 days, upon information and belief, her immigration attorney has not received any notification of ICE having conducted a custody review interview, despite counsel having a G-28 Notice of Appearance on file since October 22, 2025." Emergency Pet. ¶¶ 1, 9 [ 1 ]. Respondents did not address this allegation in their Response. See Resp’ts’ Opp'n to Pet. [ 8 ].Petitioner raised this issue again in her reply. See Reply in Support of Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 16–18 [ 13 ]. The court subsequently directed Respondents to “submit a declaration stating whether a custody review interview has taken place and, if so, on what date, whether ICE subsequently made a custody review determination, and whether such a determination was sent to Petitioner’s counsel.” Electronic Order [ 15 ].On February 19, 2026, Respondents requested an extension of the deadline in part "to gather and analyze [relevant] facts[.]" Mot. for Extension of Time ¶ 5 [ 16 ]. In light of the liberty interests at stake, and finding that such an inquiry should have taken place prior to Respondents’ initial response or upon review of Petitioner’s reply brief, the court granted the requested extension but ordered Respondents to release Petitioner on “temporary release only, while Respondents are gathering and analyzing the relevant facts and preparing their responsive filings, and while this court has an opportunity to review them and resolve the pending matter.” Electronic Order [ 17 ].Respondents subsequently filed the required declaration and a response. See Resp. to Court Order, Ex. 1 [[18-1]] (the “Krzyzek Decl.”); Resp. to Court Order [ 18 ]. The declaration indicated that “[o]n or about October 28, 2025, an [Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)] officer served Petitioner with a Notice to Alien of File Custody Review, indicating that Petitioner’s custody status would be reviewed on or about November 28, 2025.” Krzyzek Decl. ¶ 6 [[18-1]]. The declaration further indicated that Enforcement and Removal Operations’ (“ERO”) “normal practice is to serve the attorney, but there is no record whether it was done in this case.” Id. The declaration further explained that “[o]n or about December 2, 2025, an ICE officer served Petitioner with a 90-day Decision to Continue Detention[.]” Id. ¶ 7. The declaration noted that, again, “ERO’s normal practice is to serve the attorney, but there is no record whether it was done in this case.” Id.ICE’s authority to detain noncitizens beyond the initial 90–day removal period is set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 241.4, which also establishes standards and procedures ICE must follow when doing so. Jimenez v. Cronen, 317 F. Supp. 3d 626, 641 (D. Mass. 2018). Pursuant to the regulatory scheme, ICE “will provide written notice to the detainee approximately 30 days in advance of the pending records review so that the alien may submit information in writing in support of his or her release.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(h)(2). Where a noncitizen is represented by counsel, ICE must “forward by regular mail a copy of any notice or decision that is being served on the alien only to the attorney or representative of record.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(d)(3); see Jimenez, 317 F. Supp. 3d at 648. And “when the government violates a regulation intended to protect a fundamental right derived from the Constitution or a federal statute, such as the Fifth Amendment right to notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court may order relief.” Jimenez, 317 F. Supp. 3d at 655; see Perez-Escobar v. Moniz, 792 F. Supp. 3d 224, 226–27 (D. Mass. 2025) (granting habeas petition and ordering release of petitioner where ICE did not abide by 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 requirements).Here, it is undisputed that Petitioner’s counsel submitted a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative on October 22, 2025. Lerman Decl., Ex. 1, at 3 [[11-1]] (Form G-28). Where ICE has no record of forwarding a copy of the Notice to Alien of File Custody Review to Petitioner’s counsel when it was served on Petitioner on October 28, 2025, and no record of forwarding a copy of the 90-day Decision to Continue Detention to Petitioner’s counsel when it was issued on December 2, 2025, and where Petitioner’s counsel states that they received no such notices, Lerman Decl. ¶ 4 [ 11 ], the court finds more probable than not that Respondents failed to abide by the requirements set forth by 8 C.F.R. § 241.4.Accordingly, the court GRANTS Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ 1 ]. The February 2026 release is no longer temporary.The clerk is directed to close the case.(MAP) (Entered: 06/03/2026)

Jun 03, 2026

Order