District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10475

#1

Jan 30, 2026

First PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11512197 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Victor Anelio Vera Andrade. (Attachments: # 1 Category Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(MacMurray, Kevin) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#2

Jan 30, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Angel Kelley 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 Donald L. Cabell. (SEC) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#3

Jan 30, 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). (JAM) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#4

Jan 30, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER re Petitioner Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. 1]. Respondents shall have until end of day February 9, 2026 to oppose the petition. Petitioner shall have until end of day February 13, 2026 to reply. The Court directs the parties to include in their motion papers, whether jurisdiction is properly before this, when the Petitioner is currently in New York. (JAM) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

#5

Jan 30, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 4 Order AUSA Anuj Khetarpal, Rayford Farquhar and USAMA Civil Process on 1/30/2026 and mailed to All Respondents on 1/30/2026. (JAM) (Entered: 01/30/2026)

Jan 30, 2026

Copy Mailed

Jan 30, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

Jan 30, 2026

Order

#6

Feb 05, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Feb 06, 2026

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

#8

Feb 18, 2026

Extension of Time

#9

Feb 18, 2026

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

#10

Feb 18, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered GRANTING 8 First MOTION for Extension of Time to February 18, 2026 to File Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Opposition (CEH) (Entered: 02/18/2026)

Feb 18, 2026

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#11

Feb 20, 2026

District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. 1]. Petitioner is a citizen and national of Ecuador who entered the United States in 2021, was placed in removal proceedings, and was charge with being removable pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act Sections 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Petitioner was found to have a credible fear claim and was released on his own recognizance. On January 27, 2023, an immigration judge granted Petitioner and his family's asylum cases. Department of Homeland Security appealed the Immigration Judge's decision, and Petitioner’s case was remanded for further proceedings. In September 2025, before the asylum case could be adjudicated on remand, Petitioner was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement("ICE") in Massachusetts. Before Petitioner filed this petition, he was moved to a detention facility in New York. Petitioner has ongoing immigration proceedings in Massachusetts. Before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Dkt. 1]. This Court does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner's case because he did not file his petition in the district of confinement. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (holding that Section 2241 permits a habeas petition only in "the district of confinement."). There are certainly exceptions to the general rule that habeas petitions must be filed in the district of confinement. See Ozturk v. Trump, 777 F. Supp. 3d 26, 35-39 (D. Mass. 2025) (describing the exceptions). However, none of these exceptions apply in this case.Specifically, Petitioner attempts to rely upon Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), to argue that "habeas jurisdiction does not turn on the fortuity of physical location where the court can provide effective relief against the officials responsible for the challenged custody." [Dkt. 9 at 4]. In Braden, the Supreme Court considered a habeas petition filed by an Alabama prisoner in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, which challenged a detainer lodged against him in Kentucky. Braden, 410 U.S. at 488-89. Because Braden sought to challenge “a confinement that would be imposed in the future,” the Court concluded the immediate custodian rule did not apply, Braden was instead “in custody” in Kentucky by virtue of the detainer, id. at 488-89, and while the Alabama warden was the present custodian, he was not “the person who [held Braden] in what [was] alleged to be unlawful custody,” id. at 494-95. Such is not the case here. Here, Petitioner is in custody in New York and challenges that custody, not some future custody determination in Massachusetts.Ozturk v. Trump, also does not provide support for Petitioner's position, as this is not a case where Respondents have been acting with “furtiveness” or “bad faith.” 777 F. Supp. 3d 26, 39 (D. Mass. 2025). Petitioner was moved to New York shortly after being detained and has not been moved since. There is no indication that Respondents are attempting to evade review of Petitioner's detention. As such Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. (CEH) (Entered: 02/20/2026)

Feb 20, 2026

Order

#12

Feb 24, 2026

Order Dismissing Case