District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10928

#1

Feb 19, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11560910 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Doneibys Alcantara Guerrero. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, 212(d)(5) parole grant, # 2 Exhibit 2, Employment Authorization Document, # 3 Category Form, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet) (Ciachurski, Julia) Modified on 2/19/2026: to remove duplicate docket text and correct cause of action to match filing (EZG). (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#2

Feb 19, 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 M. Page Kelley. (JKK) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#3

Feb 19, 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). (EZG) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

#4

Feb 19, 2026

Service Order-2241 Petition

#5

Feb 19, 2026

Copy re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) and 4 Order Concerning Service of Petition and Stay or Transfer of Removal mailed to David Wesling, Antone Moniz, Todd Lyons and Kristi Noem. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/19/2026)

Feb 19, 2026

Copy Mailed

Feb 19, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Feb 25, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#7

Feb 26, 2026

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

#8

Feb 27, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The petitioner is given leave to file a reply brief on or before March 6, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Feb 27, 2026

Order

#9

Mar 06, 2026

Response - not related to a motion

#10

Mar 06, 2026

Exhibit

#11

Mar 06, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The respondents are given leave to file a sur-reply brief on or before March 13, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

Mar 06, 2026

Order

#12

Mar 13, 2026

Response to Court Order

#13

Mar 20, 2026

NOTICE OF HEARING: Hearing on Petition 1 set for 4/2/2026 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 3 (In person only) before District Judge Julia E. Kobick. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 03/20/2026)

Mar 20, 2026

Notice of Hearing

#14

Apr 02, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#15

Apr 02, 2026

Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before District Judge Julia E. Kobick: Hearing on Petition held on 4/2/2026. Case called. The Court hears arguments from the parties regarding the petition 1 . The Court takes the matter under advisement. Attorneys present: Julia Ciachurski and Daniela Hargus for the Petitioner. Erica McMahon for the Respondents. Court Reporter: Catherine Zelinski at CAL.Zelinski.Steno@gmail.com. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 04/02/2026)

Apr 02, 2026

Hearing - Other

#16

Apr 07, 2026

Memorandum & Order

#17

Apr 13, 2026

Status Report

#18

Apr 17, 2026

Judgment

#19

Jun 02, 2026

Enforce Judgment

#20

Jun 02, 2026

Memorandum in Support of Motion

#21

Jun 16, 2026

Opposition to Motion

#22

Jun 17, 2026

Vacate

#23

Jun 18, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Any response to the motion to vacate the service order, ECF 22, shall by due by June 23, 2026. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/18/2026)

Jun 18, 2026

Order

#24

Jun 23, 2026

Status Report

#25

Jun 24, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.On June 17, 2026, the respondents moved to vacate the Court’s February 19, 2026 order prohibiting removal of petitioner Doneibys Alcantara Guerrero because, after an Immigration Judge ordered him removed and he failed to timely appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), he was subject to a final order of removal and was now therefore detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). ECF 22 ; see ECF 4 ; ECF 21, at 2--3. Six days later, however, the parties filed a joint status report stating that the respondents no longer intend to remove him during the pendency of his BIA appeal dated June 10, 2026, which is now present in his Electronic Record of Proceedings. ECF 24 . The respondents’ motion, ECF 22, is accordingly DENIED without prejudice. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/24/2026)

Jun 24, 2026

Order on Motion to Vacate

#26

Jul 02, 2026

District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. On April 6, 2026, the Court granted petitioner Doneibys Alcantara Guerrero’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the respondents to release him within seven days “unless an Immigration Judge determines, at a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), that he poses a flight risk or a danger to the community under the standard set forth in Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19, 41 (1st Cir. 2021).” ECF 16 . At the bond hearing a week later, Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Luciana Dubuc found that he was “a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence” and denied him bond. ECF 17-1, at 1; ECF 20-1, at 1. These findings were based solely on Alcantara Guerrero’s recent arrest and charge on January 19, 2026 for assault and battery on a police officer, in violation of M.G.L. c. 265, § 13D, and for the common-law offense of interfering with a police officer. ECF 20-2, at 3 (unofficial transcript); see ECF 21, at 5 n.4 (respondents noting that this transcript “appear[s] to be accurate”); ECF 20-3. Contending that this bond hearing was constitutionally inadequate, Alcantara Guerrero now moves to enforce the Court’s prior order and requests that he be released. ECF 19 . For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion and order his immediate release.The respondents argue, as a threshold matter, that the Court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). In pertinent part, that statute prohibits courts from reviewing “[t]he Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding the application of” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) and from “set[ting] aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the. . . denial of bond.” 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). While “the government maintains discretion in each case to grant or deny bond,” such discretion is limited by “the constitutional restraints applicable to all government action.” Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 34. Where, as here, a habeas petitioner asserts that “his detention resulted from constitutionally defective procedures,” he may “challenge those procedures.” Brito v. Garland, 22 F.4th 240, 253 (1st Cir. 2021).The respondents further contend that, by failing to appeal the IJ’s denial of bond to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), Alcantara Guerrero has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Exhaustion may be excused, however, where a petitioner could “‘suffer irreparable harm if unable to secure immediate judicial consideration of his claim.’” Portela-Gonzalez v. Sec’y of the Navy, 109 F.3d 74, 77 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 147 (1992)). This includes situations where “the petitione[r] remains detained” pending the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Brito, 22 F.4th at 256. Waiver of the exhaustion requirement is warranted here because Alcantara Guerrero, who remains in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is likely to experience irreparable harm if he is unable to seek habeas relief until the BIA decides an appeal of the IJ’s denial of bond. SeeGomes v. Hyde, 804 F. Supp. 3d 265, 272-73 (D. Mass. 2025); Sampiao v. Hyde, 799 F. Supp. 3d 14, 25-26 (D. Mass. 2025).The respondents also initially asserted that Alcantara Guerrero recently became subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, rather than discretionary detention 8 U.S.C. § 1226, because an IJ issued an order of removal on May 8, 2026. See ECF 21-1. But they subsequently acknowledged that Alcantara Guerrero appealed that order of removal to the BIA and, as a result, the order is not “administratively final” and he is not subject to detention under Section 1231. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a) (“order of removal . . . become[s] final . . . “[u]pon dismissal of an appeal by the [BIA]”); ECF 24 .On the merits, Alcantara Guerrero argues, and the Court agrees, that the April 13, 2026 bond hearing violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. To continue detaining Alcantara Guerrero based on a finding of dangerousness, due process requires the government to “prove by clear and convincing evidence that [he] poses a danger to the community.” Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 41. An uncorroborated police report describing Alcantara Guerrero’s arrest is insufficient, as a matter of law, to constitute clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness. See Zamora Luna v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-12190-JEK, ECF 15 (D. Mass. June 29, 2026) (granting motion to enforce and ordering immediate release after IJ Dubuc denied bond based on an arrest and collecting cases); Miti v. Moniz, No. 26-11327-BEM, 2026 WL 884639, at *1 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2026) (granting habeas petition and ordering release where IJ denied bond based only on “a police report describing a delayed allegation of misdemeanor assault, where the officers observed no physical injuries”); cf. Rosa v. Garland, 114 F.4th 1, 17 (1st Cir. 2024) (in adjudicating adjustment of status cases, “the agency may not give ‘substantial weight’ to a police report in the absence of ‘a conviction or corroborating evidence of the allegations contained’ in the report” (quoting In Re Arreguin De Rodriguez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 38, 42 (BIA 1995))). Also insufficient is the Massachusetts state court summary reflecting that his charges remain pending because reliance on those charges “is simply additional reliance on the police report.” Rosa, 114 F.4th at 21.In addition, IJ Dubuc failed to consider or discuss Alcantara Guerrero’s evidentiary submissions at the bond hearing, including his declaration and his family’s affidavits. See ECF 20-4. This is particularly problematic because that sworn testimony, at a minimum, contextualizes the January 19, 2026 incident that led to his arrest. SeePalma Aguirre v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-11927-LTS, ECF 16 (D. Mass. May 21, 2026) (granting motion to enforce and ordering immediate release because IJ Dubuc “failed to meaningfully engage with the petitioner’s substantial evidentiary submissions,” including his “sworn affidavit . . . disputing the alleged victim’s claims, denying he had committed an assault at all, and providing context for the incident leading to his criminal charges”); Rogerio Ramos v. Moniz, No. 26-cv-11388-LTS, ECF 19 (D. Mass. Apr. 27, 2026) (similar). The police report states that Alcantara “Guerrero attempted to stop officers from handcuffing [his brother-in-law] by placing his body in between” them and shoving an officer “out of the way after being advised to stay back.” ECF 20-3, Ex. D, at 16. Yet Alcantara Guerrero attests the incident—when he “was stuck in between the police officers and [his] brother-in-law” after his “father-in-law Pablo asked [him] to intervene”—“was all a misunderstanding” because he did not “attempt to harm anyone purposely” but instead sought to help his brother-in-law, who “was behaving erratically” and “attempted to harm himself and threatened to take his life.” ECF 20-4, Ex. A, at 5, ¶ 5. Alcantara Guerrero’s girlfriend, Katty Sosa, similarly avers that the incident “was all a misunderstanding due to [her] brother’s behavior.” Id., Ex. C, at 11. Sosa’s stepfather, Pablo Valera, likewise attests that he “asked [Alcantara Guerrero] to try to get [his] son to calm down and not hurt himself any further while [they] wait[ed] for the police to arrive.” Id., Ex. F, at 18.Nor did IJ Dubuc consider alternatives to detention. See Hernandez-Lara, 10 F.4th at 45 (“IJs must consider . . . alternative conditions of release during section 1226(a) bond hearings” (citing Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2017))). The fact that Alcantara Guerrero did not present any alternatives to detention at the bond hearing is irrelevant because due process requires such considerations. SeeCosta v. McDonald, No. 25-cv-13469-AK, 2026 WL 371198, at *3 (D. Mass. Feb. 10, 2026). Under the circumstances, the IJ did not afford Alcantara Guerrero a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. See Atariguana-Buele v. Warden, Plymouth Corr. Facility, No. 26-cv-12168-LTS, 2026 WL 1825934, at *2-3 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026) (discussing prior cases in which IJ Dubuc violated petitioners’ due process rights in bond hearings by failing, among other things, to consider alternatives to detention).Accordingly, Alcantara Guerrero’s motion to enforce, ECF 19, is GRANTED. The respondents are ORDERED to release Alcantara Guerrero within 24 hours, by no later than 4:30 p.m. on July 3, 2026. The respondents must also file a status report by July 6, 2026 confirming their compliance with this Order. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/02/2026)

Jul 02, 2026

Order on Motion to Enforce Judgment

#27

Jul 06, 2026

Status Report