District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10558

#1

Feb 04, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11525657 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Sabino Oswaldo Luis Luis. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Miller, Jacob) Modified on 2/4/2026: to remove duplicate docket text (EZG). (Entered: 02/04/2026)

#2

Feb 04, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel shall complete and file in PDF format a Local Category Form. The form can be found on the court's website under Resources/Forms. Counsel will use the event under Other Documents- Civil Cover Sheet & Category Sheet. (LBO) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

#3

Feb 04, 2026

Category Sheet by Sabino Oswaldo Luis Luis. (Miller, Jacob) Modified on 2/4/2026: document replaced with corrected category form provided by counsel (Currie, Haley). (Entered: 02/04/2026)

#4

Feb 04, 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 Jennifer C. Boal. (JKK) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

#5

Feb 04, 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: 02/04/2026)

#6

Feb 04, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#7

Feb 04, 2026

Copy re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 3 Category Form and 6 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal mailed to Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Michael Krol and Kristi Noem on 2/4/2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/04/2026)

Feb 04, 2026

Copy Mailed

Feb 04, 2026

Notice - Other

Feb 04, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#8

Feb 05, 2026

MOTION for Injunctive Relief by Sabino Oswaldo Luis Luis.(Miller, Jacob) (Entered: 02/05/2026)

#9

Feb 05, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The respondents are ORDERED to respond to petitioner's Emergency Motion to Require Immediate Release, ECF 8, on or before February 6, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/05/2026)

Feb 05, 2026

Order

#10

Feb 06, 2026

Withdraw

#11

Feb 06, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#12

Feb 06, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 10 MOTION to Withdraw (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

#13

Feb 06, 2026

Notice - Other

Feb 06, 2026

Order on Motion to Withdraw

#14

Feb 10, 2026

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

#15

Feb 11, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Petitioner Sabino Oswaldo Luis Luis, a 19-year-old citizen of Guatemala, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on February 4, 2026 seeking his immediate release. ECF 1, ¶¶ 1, 3. After entering the United States in January 2023, Luis Luis has obtained deferred action and a valid work permit and was granted Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) status by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J). Id. ¶ 6; see Osorio-Martinez v. Att’y Gen. United States of Am., 893 F.3d 153, 158 (3d Cir. 2018) (describing SIJ status as “a protective classification designed by Congress to safeguard abused, abandoned, or neglected alien children who are able to meet its rigorous eligibility requirements”). The same day that he filed this petition, he was arrested and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Massachusetts, where he remains. ECF 1, ¶¶ 1, 5, 12.The respondents argue that Luis Luis is lawfully detained as an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2). They acknowledge, however, that “the legal issues presented in this Petition are similar to those addressed by this Court in” Gomes v. Hyde, 804 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D. Mass. 2025), dos Santos v. Noem, No. 25-cv-12052-JEK, 2025 WL 2370988 (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2025), and Sampiao v. Hyde, 799 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D. Mass. 2025). ECF 14, at 1. In those cases, this Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)—not Section 1225(b)—governed the petitioner’s detention. Gomes, 804 F. Supp. 3d at 276; dos Santos, 2025 WL 2370988, at *7; Sampiao, 799 F. Supp. 3d at 28. The respondents contend that “[s]hould the Court follow its reasoning in those decisions, it would likely reach the same result here.” ECF 14, at 2. The Court agrees and therefore concludes that Section 1226(a), not Section 1225(b), governs Luis Luis’ detention.Noncitizens like Luis Luis “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, 799 F. Supp. 3d at 19-20. 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, Luis Luis’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF 1, 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. See ECF 8, Felipe-Bras De Souza v. Gillen, No. 25-cv-13347-JEK (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 2025) (granting bond hearing to habeas petitioner with SIJ status where he requested release). The respondents are further ORDERED to file a status report on or before February 20, 2026, notifying the Court whether Luis Luis has been granted bond and released or, if his request for bond was denied, providing the reasons for that denial. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/11/2026)

Feb 11, 2026

Order

#16

Feb 20, 2026

Show Cause

#17

Feb 20, 2026

Status Report

Mar 09, 2026

Order on Motion to Show Cause

#19

Mar 18, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#20

Mar 18, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#21

Mar 18, 2026

Status Report

#22

Mar 19, 2026

Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance

#23

Mar 19, 2026

Judgment

#24

Mar 30, 2026

Emergency MOTION to Require Immediate Release, MOTION to Reopen and for Limited Injunctive Relief by Sabino Oswaldo Luis Luis. (Miller, Jacob) Modified on 3/30/2026: adjusted docket text to reflect full title of the PDF (Currie, Haley). (Entered: 03/30/2026)

#25

Mar 30, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#26

Mar 31, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.Petitioner Sabino Oswaldo Luis Luis’ emergency motion to reopen, ECF 24, is DENIED. After granting Luis Luis’s habeas petition and ordering two bond hearings, at which an Immigration Judge twice denied him bond, this Court entered judgment in Luis Luis’ favor and closed the case. ECF 15, 18, 21, 23 . Since then, Luis Luis has been transferred to Louisiana, will be permitted to pursue an asylum claim before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and plans to file a motion to dismiss the pending criminal charge based on which the Immigration Judge determined him to be a flight risk. ECF 24, ¶¶ 2-4. Luis Luis seeks to reopen this case based on these new “material developments” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2). Id. ¶¶ 3, 6.Under Rule 60(b)(2), “a litigant may move to reopen the judgment for newly discovered evidence . . . only if the evidence could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence . . . and the new evidence would probably have changed the outcome.” Roger Edwards, LLC v. Fiddes & Son Ltd., 427 F.3d 129, 134 (1st Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Luis Luis fails to identify any such evidence. This case was resolved in his favor, as this Court granted his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The new evidence would not have changed that outcome. In addition, Luis Luis makes no argument that the developments noted in his motion have rendered his current detention in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) unlawful. To the extent he would so contend, the remedy is not a Rule 60(b)(2) motion in this case, but rather a new habeas petition in a Court with jurisdiction. And to the extent Luis Luis contests the Immigration Judge’s decisions denying his requests for release on bond, he may appeal those decisions to Board of Immigration Appeals.Luis Luis does contend that his post-judgment transfer to Louisiana interferes with his ability to pursue his asylum claim and defend against his criminal charge by denying him access to counsel. But the respondents did not violate any court order or Luis Luis’ constitutional or statutory rights when they transferred him after judgment entered in this case. By statute, “[t]he Attorney General shall arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1). This language affords the Attorney General “discretionary power to transfer aliens from one locale to another, as she deems appropriate.” Van Dinh v. Reno, 197 F.3d 427, 433 (10th Cir. 1999); accord Wood v. United States, 175 F. App’x 419, 420 (2d Cir. 2006). Luis Luis’ transfer outside of his preferred location in this District does not violate the Constitution or federal law. See Avramenkov v. I.N.S., 99 F. Supp. 2d 210, 214 (D. Conn. 2000). His emergency motion is accordingly denied. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 03/31/2026)

Mar 31, 2026

Order on Motion to Reopen Case