District of Massachusetts • 1:26-cv-10975

#1

Feb 25, 2026

Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Filing fee: $ 405, receipt number AMADC-11570564 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241) Filing fee: $ 5, receipt number AMADC-11570564 Fee status: Filing Fee paid., filed by Adenilson Alder Gonzalez Perez. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form)(Huntington, Robert) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#2

Feb 25, 2026

ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin 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. (LBO) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#3

Feb 25, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. ORDER CONCERNING SERVICE OF PETITION AND STAY OF TRANSFER OR REMOVAL. (FGD) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#4

Feb 25, 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). (FGD) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

#5

Feb 25, 2026

Copy re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241), 3 Service Order - 2241 Petition emailed to Duty AUSA and mailed to Respondents and USAO on 2/25/2026. (FGD) (Entered: 02/25/2026)

Feb 25, 2026

Copy Mailed

Feb 25, 2026

Notice of Case Assignment

#6

Feb 26, 2026

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

#7

Feb 27, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Julian N. Canzoneri on behalf of Patricia Hyde, Todd Lyons, Antone Moniz, Kristi L. Noem (Canzoneri, Julian) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#8

Feb 27, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.After reviewing the Petition and the Response, the Court hereby ALLOWS the Petition as follows. Respondents shall release Petitioner by 6 PM on March 6, 2026, unless he is provided a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) before that time. If a bond hearing occurs, Respondents may not at the hearing argue that Petitioner is or should be detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1225, nor may Petitioner be ordered detained pursuant to section 1225, and the burdens of proof at the hearing are as resolved by the First Circuit in Hernandez-Lara. Respondents shall not retaliate against Petitioner, at a bond hearing or otherwise, for filing this Petition. Respondents shall file a status report no later than March 10, 2026, describing their compliance with this Order. The Court renders this decision in light of the record before the Court, the prior decisions of this Court, and the government’s concession that this case is similar to prior cases resolved by this Court. See Doc. No. 6 .(FGD) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

Feb 27, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

#9

Mar 05, 2026

Miscellaneous Relief

#10

Mar 06, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re: 9 First MOTION release or new bond hearing.The government shall respond to this motion by Thursday, March 12, 2026. (FGD) (Entered: 03/06/2026)

Mar 06, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#11

Mar 09, 2026

Status Report

#12

Mar 12, 2026

Response to Motion

#13

Mar 13, 2026

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.On February 27, 2026, this Court allowed the habeas petition in this action and required the respondents to provide the petitioner a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), applying the burdens of proof under governing First Circuit precedent. Doc. No. 8. On March 5, an immigration judge (“IJ”) held a bond hearing at which the respondents argued the petitioner’s release would pose a danger to the community, offering exhibits in support of their position. See Doc. Nos. 9, 9-1, 9-2 (including report by immigration officers describing their arrest of petitioner after he fled from them; docket information for open state criminal case charging OUI, driving without a license, and driving in the wrong lane; docket information for August 2025 state criminal case charging possession of alcohol by underage person and showing case was dismissed upon “payment of court fees or completion of community service”; and arrest report underlying August 2025 case describing petitioner as passenger in car engaged in high-speed chase with police with closed and open containers of beer beside and at foot of petitioner’s seat). The petitioner offered exhibits to counter the respondents’ argument. See Doc. No. 9-3 (including affidavit of petitioner’s older sister and letters of support from two friends and one former employer, none of which address arrest history). The IJ denied bond after “full consideration of the evidence presented,” finding he “is a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence.” Doc. No. 9-4. That same day, the petitioner filed a motion asking this Court to order his immediate release or require a new bond hearing, arguing the evidence before the IJ “fell far short of that demanded” by the relevant First Circuit precedent. Doc. No. 9 at 1. The government has opposed the motion, arguing the petitioner must first exhaust the available administrative remedies by appealing the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Doc. No. 12; cf.Dos Reis v. Vitello, No. 25-cv-10497-RGS, 2025 WL 1043434, at *2 (D. Mass. Apr. 8, 2025) (declining in similar circumstances to intervene as to bond before pursuit of ordinary review process). After consideration of the parties’ submissions and the record before this Court, the petitioner’s motion is DENIED. The Court’s review in this context is circumscribed. SeeHernandez-Azuaje v. Hyde, No. 25-cv-13224-ADB, 2026 WL 221833, at *1 (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2026). As to the bond challenge, the petitioner has not demonstrated a basis for excusing the exhaustion requirement that ordinarily applies in the habeas context, nor does the record establish that the IJ’s decision was rendered in disregard of the applicable legal standards or was otherwise so arbitrary that it violates the petitioner’s due-process rights. Seeid. at *2; Diaz Ortiz v. Smith, 384 F. Supp. 3d 140, 144 (D. Mass. 2019). (FGD) (Entered: 03/13/2026)

#14

Mar 13, 2026

Judgment

Mar 13, 2026

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief