District of Massachusetts • 1:25-cv-12678

#1

Sep 19, 2025

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11249114 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Luis David Ajtzac Osorio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 - ICE Locator screenshot, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Category Form Category Form)(Peredo Carroll, Alexandra) (Entered: 09/19/2025)

#2

Sep 19, 2025

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. (SEC) (Entered: 09/19/2025)

#3

Sep 19, 2025

General Order 19-02

#4

Sep 19, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITIONAND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (SEC) (Entered: 09/19/2025)

Sep 19, 2025

Notice of Case Assignment

#5

Sep 24, 2025

Notice of Appearance

#6

Sep 30, 2025

Amended Document - NOT Motion

#7

Oct 03, 2025

Extension of Time

Oct 06, 2025

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

#9

Oct 14, 2025

File Excess Pages

#10

Oct 14, 2025

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

#12

Oct 15, 2025

Leave to File Document

Oct 15, 2025

Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Oct 16, 2025

Order on Motion for Leave to File Document

#14

Oct 17, 2025

Temporary Restraining Order

#15

Oct 20, 2025

Opposition to Motion

#16

Oct 22, 2025

Brief - not related to a motion

#17

Oct 24, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having considered the amended habeas petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the "Amended Petition") filed by Petitioner Luis David Ajtzac Osorio ("Petitioner"), D. 6, the opposition of Respondents to same, D. 10, Petitioner's reply, D. 16, Petitioner's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, D. 14, and Respondents' opposition to same, D. 15, 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), 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. In light of the Court ALLOWING the Amended Petition, D. 6, by granting Petitioner habeas relief to the extent noted, the Court DENIES Petitioner's emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, D. 14, without prejudice.Factual Background. Petitioner is an eighteen-year-old noncitizen from Guatemala. D. 6 ¶ 1; D. 6-1 ¶ 1. Petitioner entered the United States on or about April 12, 2023 at the age of fifteen. Id. ¶ 32; D. 10-1 ¶ 7. Petitioner was apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") officers, designated as an unaccompanied minor and placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR"). Id. ¶ 32; D. 6-1 at 2; D. 10-1 ¶¶ 7-8. On April 13, 2023, a Notice to Appear ("NTA") for removal proceedings was issued to Petitioner ordering him to appear before an immigration judge on "a date to be set at a time to be [set]." D. 6-1 at 4. The NTA charged Petitioner as a person "present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled" under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(1) (providing that "[a]n alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled,..., is inadmissible")], id., not as an "arriving alien." Id. On May 3, 2023, Petitioner was released on an order of recognizance to a relative in New Bedford, Massachusetts. D. 6-1 at 2; D. 10-1 ¶ 9. On or about February 12, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") received Petitioner's Form I-360, Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status ("SIJS"), and approved the SIJS petition on May 9, 2024. D. 6-1 at 7. USCIS also granted Petitioner deferred action pursuant to 8 C.F.R § 274a.12(c)14. Id.; D. 10-1 ¶ 11. On January 16, 2025, an immigration judge granted Petitioner's (unopposed) motion to terminate his removal proceedings based on the approval of Petitioner's SIJS petition. D. 6-1 at 11; D. 10-1 ¶ 13.On September 19, 2025, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") encountered Petitioner and took him into custody. D. 10-1 ¶ 14; see D. 6 ¶ 2. On the same day, Petitioner was served with a NTA for removal proceedings scheduled for October 2, 2025, D. 6-1 at 23-26. This NTA charged Petitioner as a person "present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled" under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (providing that "any immigrant at the time of application for admission[] who is not in possession of a... a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document... is inadmissible")], D. 6-1 at 23, not as an "arriving alien." Id. In a termination notice also dated September 19, 2025, USCIS informed Petitioner it had terminated his period of deferred action in connection with his approved SIJS petition and its intent to revoke Petitioner's deferred action-based employment authorization. D. 6-1 at 28.Petitioner filed his original Petition, on September 19, 2025, D. 1, and the Amended Petition, D. 6, on September 30, 2025, alleging, among other things, that his arrest and detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and its associated regulations, because Petitioner is being deprived of a bond hearing, D. 6 ¶¶ 7, 46-50; (2) his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because the Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing, id. ¶¶ 7, 51-54, and an individualized detention hearing, id. ¶¶ 7, 55-62.On October 16, 2025, Petitioner appeared before the Chelmsford Immigration Court, having previously requested a bond hearing/custody redetermination and filed a motion to terminate his removal proceedings. See D. 14 at 4; D. 14-1 at 2-6. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's motion for custody redetermination, D. 14-1 at 5-6, on the grounds that he was "subject to mandatory detention. " Id. at 5. The same day, the immigration judge granted Petitioner's (opposed) motion to terminate his removal proceedings based on approval of his SIJS petition, D. 14-1 at 2-3. The Department of Homeland Security reserved its right to appeal the immigration judge's termination order. D. 14-1 at 3. Discussion. Petitioner brings this Amended Petition to challenge the legality of his detention in this district and seeks relief from same. D. 6 at 11-12. 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").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), as Respondents contend (which provides for mandatory detention for "applicants for admission"); see Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 289 (2018) (discussing the distinction). In the instant case, Petitioner has been classified as an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or paroled, and not as an arriving alien, in the April 2023 and September 2025 NTAs issued by Respondents. D. 6-1 at 4; D. 6-1 at 23. As Respondents acknowledge in their opposition, D. 10 at 16 n.5, "[o]ther sessions of this court, as well as other courts across the country, have determined that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and not 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), appl[ies] to aliens arrested and detained within the United States, even if such alien meets the definition of an applicant for admission as an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted." The Court agrees with these courts that the detention of noncitizens such as Petitioner, who are arrested and detained within the United States, is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and that Petitioner, at minimum, is thus entitled to a bond hearing and individualized determination of detention. De Andrade v. Moniz, No. 25-cv-12455-FDS, 2025 WL 2841844, at *6 (D. Mass. Oct. 7, 2025) (noting that the Court "joins the many other courts in this district and across the country that have found that non-citizens who have been conditionally paroled into the United States are entitled to discretionary detention and a bond hearing under §§ 1226(a), not mandatory detention under 1225(b)") and cases cited; Sampiao v. Hyde, No. 25-11981-JEK, 2025 WL 2607924, at *7-8 (D. Mass. Sept. 9, 2025); Doe v. Moniz, No. 25-12094-IT, 2025 WL 2576819, at *4-6 (D. Mass. Sept. 5, 2025); Romero v. Hyde, No. 25-11631-BEM, 2025 WL 2403827, at *11 (D. Mass. Aug. 19, 2025); Gomes v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-11571-JEK, 2025 WL 1869299 (D. Mass. Jul. 7, 2025). Accordingly, this Court has joined this chorus of well-reasoned opinions. Araujo Da Silva v. Bondi, et al., No. 25-cv-12672-DJC, 2025 WL 2969163 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2025). Specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2), which provides for mandatory detention (subject to exclusions not applicable here), by its own terms applies only to "applicant[s] for admission" who an "examining immigration officer" has determined are "not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted," 8. U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), and thus "authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens seeking admission into the country," Jennings, 583 U.S. at 289. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), by contrast, which creates a discretionary detention framework (again subject to exclusions not applicable here), applies to noncitizens arrested "[o]n a warrant," 8. U.S.C. § 1226(a), and authorizes the government "to detain certain aliens already in the country," Jennings, 583 U.S. at 289. Noncitizens subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226's discretionary detention framework are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge. Id. at 306 (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(d)(1), 1236.1(d)(1)); see Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F. 4th 19, 26 (1st Cir. 2021). Because Petitioner was already in the country when ICE arrested him, Petitioner is subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)'s discretionary detention framework and entitled to a bond hearing. Where the immigration judge recently declined Petitioner's request for a bond hearing/custody redetermination because Petitioner is "subject to mandatory detention," D. 14-1 at 5, Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief consistent with the statute and caselaw cited herein.For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, D. 6, is ALLOWED insofar as it sought a bond hearing/individualized custody redetermination before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), 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. In light of the Court ALLOWING the Amended Petition, D. 6, granting Petitioner habeas relief, the Court DENIES Petitioner's emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, D. 14, without prejudice. (LMH) (Entered: 10/24/2025)

Oct 24, 2025

Order on Motion for TRO

#18

Nov 03, 2025

Status Report

#19

Nov 04, 2025

Chief District Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Having granted habeas relief to the extent explained in its earlier Order, D. 17, the Court ALLOWS the Amended Petition, D. 6, to that extent. Each party shall bear their own fees and costs. This matter shall be closed. (LMH) (Entered: 11/04/2025)

Nov 04, 2025

Order